Case No. CR-2019-LDS-000669

157.First, I have well in mind the particular need for statements of case in s994 cases to be properly and fully pleaded. It is also important that substantive matters relied upon by way of unfair prejudice are set out in the Petition/points of claim rather than (for example) in Points of Reply, to which a defence will not respond. As regards the latter point, the amendments made to the Petition were permitted but on the basis that they were incorrectly raised in the points of reply.158.The cases on this area are well known but include In the Matter of Tecnion Investments Ltd [1985] B.C.L.C. 434 CA (Civ Div) at 441; McKillen v Barclay [2012] EWHC 521 (Ch) at [12] and Re G&G Properties Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2046 at [35]–[39].159.As regards amendment I was faced with some amendments being suggested in the course of the proceedings and then further amendments being put forward after the evidence was completed in the course of closing submissions.160.The relevant law relating to late amendments is fairly clear from the authorities. First, in accordance with the overriding objective, the question is one of balancing the prejudice (if any) to the person against whom the amendment is sought against the injustice to the person seeking the amendment if it is not permitted. Secondly, all relevant circumstances are considered. These will include (among others) the stage at which the application is made, its prospects of success, the reasons given for the lateness of the proposed amendment, the other party(ies) ability to deal with (and the fairness of making them deal with) it, the effect of the proposed amendment on the overall procedural timetable and, in certain circumstances, such as where an adjournment becomes necessary, the interests of other court users, the court’s limited resources and the encouragement of compliance with court rules and orders may be further factors coming into play. Costs will, of themselves, rarely be sufficient compensation so as to justify permitting the amendment.161.As regards late amendments, of various varieties, I was referred to Quah v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm); Singh v. Singh [2014] EWHC 1060 (Ch); Ahmed v Ahmed [2016] EWCA Civ 686; Nesbit Law Group LLP v. Acasta European Insurance Co. Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 268; and Kensington Mortgage Co. Ltd v. Mallon [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch).