Bank Notes

A - Amendment

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].

5/6/20

TRW PENSIONS TRUST LTD v INDESIT COMPANY POLSKA SP ZOO [2020] EWHC 1414 (TCC)

Considers when an application to change the name of a party should be dealt with under CPR r 17.4(3) on grounds of mistake or as an application to substitute a party under CPR r 19.5, and the principles applicable under CPR r 19.5(3)(a) to an application to substitute a party. On the facts an application to change the name of the second defendant from TP ICPAP plc and to substitute it with TP ICAP Group Services Ltd, succeeded.

14/5/20

KMG INTERNATIONAL NV v CHEN [2020] EWHC 1203 (Comm)

Summarises principles to be applied on application for permission to make late amendments.

2/4/19

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL v UBB WASTE (ESSEX) LTD [2019] EWHC 819 (TCC)

Contains a useful summary of the principles to be applied in considering whether to allow amendment of pleadings [8].

11/8/17

VILCA v XSTRATA [2017] EWHC 2096 (QB)

A late amendment to raise a limitation defence was allowed. The court summarised the applicable principles [25-27]. The amendment was not very late in the sense that it would cause the trial to be adjourned. If the amendment was well-founded, refusing it would confer a windfall on the claimant which was unjust, especially as the same limitation issue would be before the court in relation to other parts of the claim.

21/10/05

GBM MINERALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD v GB MINERALS HOLDINGS LTD [2015] EWHC 2954 (TCC)

Considers when permission should be given for late amendments of pleadings.

14/7/15

CANT v HERTZ CORP [2015] EWHC 2617 (Ch)

Amendment and service of a claim form without the claim form being re-sealed before service was a failure which could be cured by an application for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9.

12/6/15

DUFOUR v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS [2014] EWHC (Ch)

Late applications to amend a defence and adduce expert evidence were permitted in circumstances where the claimant had been partly responsible for the delay and the defendant could not have applied to amend earlier.

29/4/15

WANI LLP v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 1181 (CA)

In a claim for alleged swap mis-selling, an application to amend particulars of claim before a 5 day trial starting in less than two months was refused principally because it was made to late, was not adequately particularised and would prejudice the defendant by requiring additional investigations at a time when the defendant was preparing for trial. The court summarised the applicable principles [41].

1/4/15

PATEL v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2015] EWCA Civ 332

The claimant claimed that the bank had been negligent to lose a cheque after it was paid in for collection and although it would have been dishonoured, the delay in finding it prevented the claimant suing the drawer. The claimant accepted that claim was unsustainable but applied to amend to plead in the alternative that the cheque would have been honoured. The application to amend was refused and the claim dismissed because there was no evidence to suggest that there would have been sufficient funds in the drawer’s account for the cheque to be paid, or even to suggest that there had been a chance of the cheque being paid.

26/3/15

SU-LING v GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL [2015] EWHC 757 (Comm)

Summarises principles to be applied to late applications to amend pleadings, especially where this would cause a trial date to be lost [38].

10/3/15

AMERICAN LEISURE GROUP LTD v OLSWANG [2015] EWHC 629 (Ch)

The court below had been entitled to refused permission to the claimant to amend the name of the defendant.

25/2/15

HAKIMZAY LTD v SWAILES [2015] EWHC B14 (Ch)

A buyer's notice making time of the essence of a contract for the sale of land fixed the time for performance. The seller's failure to comply was a repudiatory breach. The seller’s subsequent notice of rescission was ineffective. A late application to amend was rejected.

8/7/14

DWF LLP v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION & SKILLS [2014] EWCA Civ 900

The judge below had wrongly refused permission to amend a claim form in proceedings brought by solicitors to challenge the fairness of a decision to reject its tender to undertake panel work for the Insolvency Service. Applying the same principles as would apply to the interpretation of contracts, the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and could therefore be made outside the primary limitation period.

27/3/14

CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LTD v CARILLION JM LTD [2014] EWHC 837 (TCC)

Having regard to the applicable principles [10], an application by the defendant for permission under CPR 14.1(5) to withdraw or qualify admissions was refused. An application by the claimant to adduce additional expert valuation evidence was also refused having regard to the limited time available before trial.

5/3/14

HAGUE PLANT LTD v HAGUE [2014] EWHC 568 (Ch)

Permission to re-amend particulars of claim was refused on grounds of proportionality. The claim had been running for 2½ years, the proposed re-amendments were extensive and to allow them would lead to further extensive judicial time being expended at the expense of other litigants.

4/3/14

FOOTBALL DATACO LTD v STAN JAMES (ABINGDON) LTD [2014] EWHC 504 (Ch)

Permission to amend particulars of claim for a fifth time was refused. The new allegation could have been made from the outset and the application was made after the hearing of a split trial and pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.

5/6/13

SHEBELLE ENTERPRISES LTD v HAMPSTEAD GARDEN SUBURB TRUST LTD, (Ch)

For permission to be given to amend particulars of claim after judgment has been handed down the circumstances must be exceptional. On the facts that test was not satisfied.