header-logo header-logo

06 June 2014
Issue: 7609 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice—Pre-trial or post-judgment relief—Amendment

Groarke v Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1676 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 186 (May)

Queen’s Bench Division, Sir David Eady sitting as a High Court Judge, 22 May 2014

The Queen’s Bench Division in granting permission to amend a claim reviewed the principles applicable, and held that justice and fairness required that the amendment should be allowed so that ‘the real dispute’ between the parties could be adjudicated upon.

Stephen Seed (instructed by Camps Solicitors) for the claimant. Helen Hobhouse (instructed by Plexus Law) for the defendant.

The defendant in a personal injury claim was refused permission by a district judge to amend his defence late in the proceedings in order to plead a case in contributory negligence. The consequence of the decision was that the defendant lost the opportunity of reducing the scale of his liability by an appropriate percentage and was thus found to be liable on a 100% basis. Quantum had yet to be assessed because a split trial had been ordered. In coming to his decision,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll