11 Jun 2004
The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to amend the statement of claim because the defendants' asserted prejudice from the late amendment was not irreparable and could be compensated by costs; late amendments are discouraged but permissible where prejudice can be adequately compensated.
5 Jul 1996
The court exercised its discretion to permit re-amendment because the proposed amendments raised matters necessary to decide the real controversy, abandonment of claims by prior omission is not irreversible and must be judged on the facts, and the Respondent/Opposing Contributories had not demonstrated prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. Discovery orders under O.24 r.3 were appropriate in winding-up proceedings and did not require the r.7 affidavit where the requests fall within r.3. Consequently the summons was granted in part with specified directions and timetables.
3 Apr 1987
The Court held that the endorsement on the writ contained a sufficient statement of the tug-boat claim so the proposed amendment merely particularised an existing claim rather than introducing a new one; omission of that claim from an earlier statement of claim did not constitute abandonment restarting limitation; the trial judge did not misdirect himself nor act plainly wrongly in granting leave to re-re-amend, and therefore the court had jurisdiction to allow the amendment and the appeal failed.