KLH Developments Ltd v John Akins (Development) Ltd & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 378 (21 July 2000)

KLH Developments Ltd v John Akins (Development) Ltd & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 378 (21 July 2000)

The trial judge properly exercised his discretion in deciding that no amendment to the pleadings was necessary because the defendants had adequate notice of the contention, and the application for permission to appeal should be refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 378
Parties
Applicant: KLH Developments Limited; Respondent: John Akins (Development) Limited; Defendant by Counter Claim: David Horton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow If Granted) From Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Case Management, Amendment of Pleadings, Discretion of Trial Judge
Civil Procedure Construction Law Pleadings Case Management Amendment of Pleadings Discretion of Trial Judge

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

KLH Developments Limited

Applicant

John Akins (Development) Limited

Respondent

David Horton

Defendant by Counter Claim

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow If Granted) From Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was necessary for KLH to amend pleadings to raise a defence based on clause 2.5.1 of the contract
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion to allow the defence without formal amendment
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the application for leave to appeal was fatal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly exercised his discretion in deciding that no amendment to the pleadings was necessary because the defendants had adequate notice of the contention, and the application for permission to appeal should be refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs in the sum of £2,500 on summary assessment of costs