LM-2025-000186 - [2025] EWHC 2098 (Comm)

In order to reflect fully the above claims in the Particulars of Claim, TUI BEL and TUI NED indicated at the hearing on 24 July 2025 that they intended to amend their pleading. In accordance with directions given by me at the hearing, on 25 July 2025 the Claimants provided a draft Amended Particulars of Claim. SLX EST and SLX LAT made short written submissions in respect of the draft on 29 July, to which the Claimants responded by further short written submissions on 30 July 2025.

Save for a reduction (of €134.18) in the amount claimed by TUI NED from SLX LAT in respect of the Block Hours reconciliation (reducing that claim from €21,843.18 to €21,709), the draft amendments reflect the revisions made by TUI BEL and TUI NED at and before the hearing on 24 July 2025 to their claims against SLX EST and SLX LAT for which summary judgment is sought. I do not understand SLX EST or SLX LAT to object to these amendments to those claims. As they recognise, there is no prejudice to them in dealing now with those claims as reformulated in the amended pleading, which represents the claims as advanced in the last round of evidence adduced by TUI BEL and TUI NED, and addressed by them at the hearing. I accordingly give permission for these amendments.

In addition to the amendments to the claims for which summary judgment is sought, the draft amended Particulars of Claim also seek to introduce amendments to claims, and new claims, against SLX MAL and SLX EST by TUI AIR and TUI BEL. As referred to above, TUI AIR is not a party to the application for summary judgment, and SLX MAL has not yet been served with the proceedings. In view of the latter point, it is said by SLX EST and SLX LAT that no amendment should be permitted against SLX MAL at this stage. It is also said that TUI AIR and TUI BEL should not be permitted to introduce an express claim against SLX MAL and/or SLX EST in respect of a ‘LEAV’ invoice (referred to below) which had originally formed part of the Block Hours claim. SLX EST however proposes that the constructive and proportionate way for these amendments to proceed is for them to be permitted against it (but not SLX MAL, for the reasons set out above), for it to plead back to them by its Defence and Counterclaim, and for it and SLX LAT to be permitted to bring counterclaims within the current proceedings.

I do not consider that the fact that SLX MAL has not yet been served with the proceedings is a reason for not allowing the proposed amendments in respect of the claims against it. Indeed, pursuant to CPR 17.1, a party can amend its statement of case before service without permission. As to the amendments against SLX EST, I do not understand it to suggest that there is any prejudice to it in the amendments being made now in respect of claims for which summary judgment is not currently being sought. In so far as it is suggested that there may be prejudice if it or SLX LAT cannot bring counterclaims in the present proceedings, the Claimants have confirmed (in the further submissions made on 30 July 2025) that they will not object to SLX EST or SLX LAT bringing counterclaims in the present proceedings, even if summary judgment is entered against them. In so far as permission is needed, I therefore grant permission for these further amendments as well.All questions of costs in respect of the amendments (if not agreed) shall be addressed with other matters consequential to this judgment.