Description
In a claim for professional negligence, the court permitted a late amendment of Particulars of Claim to add a differently pleaded case at the start of trial and an adjournment after it became apparent to the judge that the case that the Claimants were adducing was different to that set out in their Particulars. It was held that despite these amendments the Defendants knew the case against them and could plead to it. It was rejected that the amendments were an abuse of process on the grounds a very similar amendment had previously been withdrawn as there had been no adjudication on this issue. Though late, the delay that would be caused by the amendment was not substantial. No principle of prejudice or estoppel arose; though a delay would cause marginally increased stress to the parties and it was true the Defendants faced a new case, the trial would not be substantially lengthened as it primarily involved looking at expert evidence and legal issues. It was important that all parties had th e fullest opportunity to present their case and that the trial did not proceed on a false and artificial premise created by a refusal to amend.
