Sodi-Tech EDM Limited & Anor v DJM Law Limited

Sodi-Tech EDM Limited & Anor v DJM Law Limited

The amendment to the Part 18 Response does not introduce a new cause of action, is not late, and reflects the evidence to be given at trial. The claimants’ case on loss is not incoherent, and the amendment should be permitted. The scope of expert evidence should be determined by reference to the totality of the pleadings, and only with expert evidence directed to the claimants’ proposed questions can the true loss or benefit from the mitigation expenditure be properly assessed.

Parties
Claimant: Sodi-Tech EDM Limited; Claimant: Peter Edward Capp; Defendant: DJM Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings and for Directions on Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Mitigation of Loss, Share Valuation, Unfair Prejudice Petition
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Company Law Amendment of Pleadings Expert Evidence Mitigation of Loss Share Valuation Unfair Prejudice Petition

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sodi-Tech EDM Limited

Claimant

Peter Edward Capp

Claimant

DJM Law Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings and for Directions on Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should be permitted to amend their Part 18 Response to plead a new justification for mitigation expenditure
  2. 2 What is the appropriate scope of expert evidence on share valuation in the context of mitigation of loss

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to the Part 18 Response does not introduce a new cause of action, is not late, and reflects the evidence to be given at trial. The claimants’ case on loss is not incoherent, and the amendment should be permitted. The scope of expert evidence should be determined by reference to the totality of the pleadings, and only with expert evidence directed to the claimants’ proposed questions can the true loss or benefit from the mitigation expenditure be properly assessed.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to the claimants to amend their Part 18 Response by inclusion of new paragraph 4d.
  • Parties’ experts are to answer questions in the form proposed by the claimants.