KB-2022-003316 - [2025] EWHC 2573 (KB)

The Claimants’ Amendment Application was issued on 22 August 2025. It is supported by evidence in witness statements from the Claimants’ solicitors. Amendments are sought both to the ‘generic case’ and to various Claimants’ individual claims. Associated has filed evidence in response to the Amendment Application in the 17^th Witness Statement of Francesca Richmond. Associated has consented to some of the amendments, but in respect of those which are opposed, Ms Richmond provided a Schedule to her witness statement. Largely, the grounds of opposition overlap with the grounds on which Associated seeks to strike out sections of the Particulars of Claim (see Section C below).

The Claimants’ Amendment Application is late. The timetable set by the Court at the First CMH anticipated that the Claimants were expected to seek to amend their Particulars of Claim following disclosure by Associated. At the First CMH, I ordered that any application by the Claimants to amend their Particulars of Claim should be made, following disclosure, at the Second CMH. The Claimants did not comply with that order (see July Judgment [35]). One immediate impact of the Claimants’ default is that the Court is now considering fundamental issues as to the scope of the Claimants’ case with only just over 3 months to go before a 9-week trial is due to commence.

More generally, however, Associated complains that only a small fraction of the substantial number of amendments for which the Claimants seek permission to amend arise from Associated’s disclosure. In her 17^th Witness Statement, Ms Richmond states that only 22 of some 300 amendments sought by the Claimants arise from unredaction of documents in Associated’s disclosure. Associated complains that the Claimants have provided no adequate explanation for the delay in applying to amend in respect of material that they have had for a considerable time. Whilst the overriding objective is always to deal with cases justly, delay is a relevant factor when considering whether to permit an amendment, particularly if the application is made close to the trial date. The implications of allowing the amendment, particularly its impact on the trial date and the other party’s ability to deal with the amendment in the time available are relevant factors. An applicant is in a weaker position if s/he has ‘sat upon’ an amendment that could have been made much sooner.