Fraud allegations must be specific

Berezovsky v Abramovich [2008] EWHC 1138 (Comm) 22 May

The claimant applied to amend his claim form and particulars of claim. The claimant alleged that both he and the defendant owned shares in a foreign company and that, although the claimant’s share was controlled and legally owned by the defendant, it was held on trust for the claimant. The claimant alleged that the defendant had conducted a campaign of intimidation against him, which had induced him to sell his beneficial interest to the defendant at a considerable undervalue. The original claim was in respect of tortious liability, in particular for intimidation, arising from the sale of his beneficial interest in the company. The claimant now applied under CPR part 17 to amend the claim form to add claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and an account of profits. The defendant opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was time-barred. The claimant submitted that there was no relevant period of limitation for the amendment as the claim was for a fraudulent breach of trust and was covered by s21 of the Limitation Act 1980. Even if the relevant limitation period had expired, the new claim put a different label on essentially the same case to comply with the requirements of CPR 17.4(2) and it contained a sufficiently concise statement of the nature of the new claim in accordance with CPR 16.2.