Keadby Generation Ltd v Promanex (Total FM & Environment Services) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2444 (TCC) (14 August 2020)

Keadby Generation Ltd v Promanex (Total FM & Environment Services) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2444 (TCC) (14 August 2020)

Amendments relating to rubber repair works and the crevice mechanism are permitted as they are properly pleaded, supported by factual and expert evidence, and do not cause real prejudice. The level 5 theory amendment is refused as speculative, unsupported by expert or factual evidence, and insufficiently clear for defendants to respond.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2444 (TCC)
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
Application to Re Amend Particulars of Claim / Pre Trial Amendment Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Late Amendments, Pleading Requirements, Expert Evidence, Causation, Quantum
Civil Procedure Tort Late Amendments Pleading Requirements Expert Evidence Causation Quantum

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

Application to Re Amend Particulars of Claim / Pre Trial Amendment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late amendments to particulars of claim should be permitted
  2. 2 Adequacy of pleading and factual basis for amendments
  3. 3 Potential prejudice to defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Amendments relating to rubber repair works and the crevice mechanism are permitted as they are properly pleaded, supported by factual and expert evidence, and do not cause real prejudice. The level 5 theory amendment is refused as speculative, unsupported by expert or factual evidence, and insufficiently clear for defendants to respond.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend particulars of claim regarding rubber repair works and crevice mechanism
  • Permission refused for amendment introducing level 5 theory