header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 June 2014
Issue: 7609 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

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

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll