Keadby Generation Ltd v Promanex (Total FM & Environment Services) Ltd & Anor

Keadby Generation Ltd v Promanex (Total FM & Environment Services) Ltd & Anor

The court allowed amendments relating to the rubber repair works and the crevice mechanism because they were supported by existing factual and expert evidence, and could be accommodated before trial without real prejudice. The court refused the amendment introducing the level 5 fire theory as it was speculative, lacked evidential and expert support, and was not sufficiently clear to allow the defendants to respond adequately.

Parties
Claimant: Keadby Generation Ltd; First Defendant: Promanex (Total FM & Environment Services) Ltd; Second Defendant: Rema Tip Top Industry UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/tort (property Damage) / Application to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application allowed in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Late Amendments, Expert Evidence, Causation in Tort, Pre Trial Procedure
Civil Procedure Tort Law Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Late Amendments Expert Evidence Causation in Tort Pre Trial Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keadby Generation Ltd

Claimant

Promanex (Total FM & Environment Services) Ltd

First Defendant

Rema Tip Top Industry UK Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/tort (property Damage) / Application to Re Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to re-amend the particulars of claim to include new factual and causation theories close to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed amendments relating to the rubber repair works and the crevice mechanism because they were supported by existing factual and expert evidence, and could be accommodated before trial without real prejudice. The court refused the amendment introducing the level 5 fire theory as it was speculative, lacked evidential and expert support, and was not sufficiently clear to allow the defendants to respond adequately.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend particulars of claim to include rubber repair works and crevice mechanism theories (paras. 25(A)(i), 27(i), 33(i), 33(ii), 33(ii)(a))
  • Permission refused to amend particulars of claim to include the level 5 fire theory (para. 33(A))