Cluley v Cluley

Cluley v Cluley

The judge's decision to allow the amendment was plainly wrong because the appellants would suffer clear prejudice that could not be compensated in costs, having lost the opportunity to join other potential defendants due to reliance on the original admission. The fact that it was open to the appellants to join other parties does not negate the prejudice caused by the late amendment. The judge misunderstood the significance of the procedural history and the effect of the admissions. The appeal was allowed and the order granting permission to amend was set aside.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: John Cluley; Claimant/appellant: Susan Cluley; Defendant/first Respondent: RL Dix Heating (A Firm); Part 20 Defendant/second Respondent: Nu Heat Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Granting Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's order set aside
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Limitation Period, Prejudice to Parties, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admissions Limitation Period Prejudice to Parties Case Management Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Cluley

Claimant/appellant

Susan Cluley

Claimant/appellant

RL Dix Heating (A Firm)

Defendant/first Respondent

Nu Heat Limited

Part 20 Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Granting Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting permission to amend the Defence to withdraw an admission of contractual relationship after the limitation period had expired
  2. 2 Whether the appellants would suffer prejudice that could not be compensated in costs by allowing the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to allow the amendment was plainly wrong because the appellants would suffer clear prejudice that could not be compensated in costs, having lost the opportunity to join other potential defendants due to reliance on the original admission. The fact that it was open to the appellants to join other parties does not negate the prejudice caused by the late amendment. The judge misunderstood the significance of the procedural history and the effect of the admissions. The appeal was allowed and the order granting permission to amend was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's order set aside

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the judge's order struck out
  • Appellants to get 80% of their costs below and all costs of statements served pursuant to paragraph 7 of the order below, to be paid by the defendants