A - Amendment to plead new claim
11/6/20
PEARCE v EAST AND NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE NHS TRUST [2020] EWHC 1504 (QB)
Summarises principles to be applied on a late application to amend a defence [10].
11/6/20
HEAT TRACE (UK) LTD v HEAT TRACE LTD [2020] EWHC 1418 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application to amend brought under s 35 Limitation Act 1980 to plead a new cause of action arising out of the same or substantially the same facts and matters as an existing claim [86]. On the facts the test was not satisfied. The factual investigation which would have to be undertaken if the proposed amendment was permitted went very significantly beyond that which would have been needed to address the original case.
18/6/19
HYDE v NYGATE [2019] EWHC 1516 (Ch)
An application to amend a claim after expiry of the primary limitation period was refused on grounds that the amendments sought to introduce a new claim which did not arise out of substantially the same facts as were already in issue for the purpose of s 35 Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2).
27/7/17
MUDUROGLU v STEPHENSON HARWOOD [2017] EWHC 29 (Ch)
An amendment made without permission under CPR r 17.1 to plead a new claim outside the primary limitation period should only be allowed to stand if the new cause of action arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as already in issue. Bringing proceedings without giving the notice required by a standstill agreement was not a repudiatory breach of the standstill agreement and could not therefore be relied on as preventing the standstill from having effect.
3/7/14
BLAKE LAPTHORN SOLICITORS v ABBEY LIFE TRUST SECURITIES LTD [2014] EWHC (Ch)
A new claim had been correctly permitted to be introduced by amendment of an existing professional negligence claim outside the primary limitation period. The existing claim was for negligent advice as to the effect of a deed. The new claim, for negligent advice as to the certification of the deed, arose out of substantially the same facts within s 35 Limitation Act 1980 & CPR r 17.4(2).
8/3/13
CHANDRA v BROOKE NORTH [2013] EWHC 417 (QB)
The claimants were entitled to rely on the extended limitation period provided by s 14A Limitation Act 1980 to amend professional negligence claims against the defendant to introduce new claims which did not arise out of the same facts as previously pleaded. The claimants did not have the required knowledge to make the new claims until judgment had been given in other proceedings and could not have made the new claims until a stay of the professional negligence proceedings had been lifted.
22/1/13
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC v WATSON [2013] EWCA Civ 6
A defendant was refused permission to amend her defence to plead a counterclaim of dishonest assistance in breach of trust based on events which occurred more than 6 years previously. The proposed amendment included new claims which could not properly be regarded as arising out of substantially the same facts as the claim already made within CPR 17.4 and s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980. The court considered differences of judicial dicta as to what constitutes a new claim for this purpose. The fact that the defendant had previously brought a claim on similar grounds would not have made it an abuse of process to counterclaim in these proceedings because the earlier claim had been struck out without a decision on the merits.