Optosafe Limited & Anor v John Mark Robertson

Optosafe Limited & Anor v John Mark Robertson

The application to amend was made fatally late and would prejudice the trial; the proposed amendments lack merit and do not disclose reasonable grounds for defence; the SLAPP argument is hopeless as the claimants' conduct does not meet the statutory criteria.

Parties
Claimant: Optosafe Limited; Claimant: Benjamin William Howard; Defendant: John Mark Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Amend Defence at Trial Commencement
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Slapps, Validity of Deeds, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Contract Law Media Law Amendment of Pleadings Slapps Validity of Deeds Overriding Objective

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Optosafe Limited

Claimant

Benjamin William Howard

Claimant

John Mark Robertson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Amend Defence at Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted permission to amend his amended defence on the first day of trial
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments disclose reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constitute a SLAPP under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was made fatally late and would prejudice the trial; the proposed amendments lack merit and do not disclose reasonable grounds for defence; the SLAPP argument is hopeless as the claimants' conduct does not meet the statutory criteria.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to amend the amended defence is refused.
  • Application certified as totally without merit.