SM v BA & Anor (No. 3: Amendments to Statement of Case) [2026] EWFC 9 (14 January 2026)

SM v BA & Anor (No. 3: Amendments to Statement of Case) [2026] EWFC 9 (14 January 2026)

The application to amend was refused because the amendments were very late, would inevitably require the vacation and relisting of the imminent preliminary issue hearing, and would cause significant prejudice to the respondents. No good explanation for the lateness was provided, as the only reason was a change of counsel, which is not sufficient. The amendments were extensive, lacked clarity and particularity, and would require substantial further work, disclosure, and possibly expert evidence. The prejudice to the respondents and the impact on court resources outweighed any prejudice to the applicant, which was self-inflicted.

Citation
[2026] EWFC 9
Parties
Applicant: SM; First Respondent: BA; Second Respondent: WD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Family/financial Remedy / Interlocutory Application—permission to Amend Points of Claim Prior to Preliminary Issue Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Beneficial Ownership of Property, Trusts, Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Undue Influence, Late Amendments, Case Management
Family Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Beneficial Ownership of Property Trusts Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Undue Influence +2 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 3 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SM

Applicant

BA

First Respondent

WD

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family/financial Remedy / Interlocutory Application—permission to Amend Points of Claim Prior to Preliminary Issue Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant (W) should be granted permission to amend her Points of Claim and adduce further witness statements prior to the preliminary issue hearing regarding beneficial ownership of property (DC)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are 'very late' and, if so, whether there is good reason to allow them
  3. 3 Whether the amendments would cause prejudice to the respondents and jeopardise the trial date

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was refused because the amendments were very late, would inevitably require the vacation and relisting of the imminent preliminary issue hearing, and would cause significant prejudice to the respondents. No good explanation for the lateness was provided, as the only reason was a change of counsel, which is not sufficient. The amendments were extensive, lacked clarity and particularity, and would require substantial further work, disclosure, and possibly expert evidence. The prejudice to the respondents and the impact on court resources outweighed any prejudice to the applicant, which was self-inflicted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend Points of Claim refused
  • Permission to adduce further witness statements refused