Harland & Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd v Aon Consulting Financial Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 1557 (Ch); [2009] All ER (D) 64 (Jul)
The meaning of a new claim within r 17.4 of the CPR was clearly the same thing as a new claim within the meaning of s 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 and so envisaged the addition of a new cause of action. However, the term ‘cause of action’ could mean different things in different contexts.
The proposition that, in the case of a negligence claim, the introduction of a new head of loss did not involve the introduction of a new cause of action, was correct provided that the substance of the new claim could be pleaded simply as a consequence of the facts originally pleaded. The new claim did not arise out of the facts on which the original claim was based if, in order to prove it, new facts had to be added.
