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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll