10 Feb 2025
The court applied the discretionary principles under Order 15 r6 and Order 20 r5 of the Rules of Court 2012, assessing necessity, prejudice and delay, and concluded that amendment of the Writ and Statement of Claim was permissible in the circumstances.
27 Jul 2020
The Sessions Court correctly refused leave to amend because the proposed amendments would change the character and substance of the original Defence, the 21‑month delay was unjustified and likely tactical (the facts were known when the original Defence was filed and change of solicitors did not excuse the delay), and the learned judge exercised her discretion properly so appellate intervention was not warranted.
27 Jul 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the Sessions Court Judge properly exercised her discretion: the proposed amendments would change the substance and character of the original Defence, the facts underpinning the amendments were known when the original Defence was filed, the 21‑month delay was unexplained and inadequately justified by a change of solicitors, and the timing indicated a tactical manoeuvre to resist summary judgment causing prejudice not compensable by costs; therefore leave to amend was rightly refused and appellate intervention was unwarranted.