Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Late amendments to pleadings will only be allowed where the interests of justice, as informed by the overriding objective, require it. The court must consider the explanation for the delay, the potential prejudice to the opposing party, the disruption to the trial, and whether the amendments are consistent with the evidence. Where amendments are based on documents rather than direct instructions, the court may dispense with the requirement for a statement of truth. In this case, some amendments were allowed where they were clarificatory, did not cause real prejudice, or were justified by the evidence; others were refused where they introduced new claims, contradicted prior evidence, or...

Parties
Claimants: Kimathi and others; Defendant: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings (individual Particulars of Claim)
Outcome
Some amendments to the Individual Particulars of Claim were allowed; others were refused. Permission to dispense with statements of truth was granted for allowed amendments based on documents rather than direct instructions.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Disclosure, Procedural Fairness, Overriding Objective, Statements of Truth
Civil Procedure Tort Limitation Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Disclosure Procedural Fairness Overriding Objective +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimathi and others

Claimants

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings (individual Particulars of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants should be permitted to amend their Individual Particulars of Claim (IPOCs) at a late stage in the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the amendments cause prejudice to the Defendant or disrupt the trial timetable
  3. 3 Whether statements of truth can be dispensed with for certain amendments

Ratio Decidendi

Late amendments to pleadings will only be allowed where the interests of justice, as informed by the overriding objective, require it. The court must consider the explanation for the delay, the potential prejudice to the opposing party, the disruption to the trial, and whether the amendments are consistent with the evidence. Where amendments are based on documents rather than direct instructions, the court may dispense with the requirement for a statement of truth. In this case, some amendments were allowed where they were clarificatory, did not cause real prejudice, or were justified by the evidence; others were refused where they introduced new claims, contradicted prior evidence, or...

Court Disposition

Some amendments to the Individual Particulars of Claim were allowed; others were refused. Permission to dispense with statements of truth was granted for allowed amendments based on documents rather than direct instructions.

Orders

  • Amendments to IPOCs allowed in respect of certain claimants and paragraphs as detailed in the attached schedules; amendments refused in other instances as detailed.
  • Permission to dispense with statements of truth for allowed amendments based on documentary evidence.