HT-2022-000180 - [2024] EWHC 1088 (TCC)

The discussion above about the various Appendices is all repeated above and is incorporated into the amendment application. The application has been considered without making the possible distinction between amendments which raise a new cause of action and amendments which simply add particulars to an existing case. If the latter kind of amendment did not require the raising of a case with a real prospect of success, it has been assumed that the requirement is the same for either kind of amendment. This is not to make a determination about that point, but it is in order not to have to decide a point which need not arise for decision.

In the discussion about strike out, the amendments were considered in the decision as to whether to strike out. It will be recalled that at the outset, the Court followed the lead of Sweett in deciding to have the applications dealt with together rather than consecutively. That approach has been appropriate because the analysis of the strike out application depended on considering proposed amendments which enabled the Court to conclude that the case had a real prospect of success. In so doing, the sections above on strike out, and particularly the consideration of the Appendices has resulted in the amendments being taken into account as part of the strike out application. The amendments are all allowed because the amendments and the underlying case have real prospects of success.

In addition to the Appendices, there have been prepared about 20 further pages of a schedule recording numerous objections to proposed amendments. An oft repeated theme in the amendment application is that the amendments will increase the cost and time involved in the proceedings and unnecessarily complicate matters, but it is also important not to introduce cost, time and complexity by a minute examination of literally hundreds of points of detail about the pleadings instead of concentrating on the bigger picture. No clarity or coherence would be achieved by going through each and every point of detail. The Court has been assisted by the written and oral submissions of the parties who have analysed objections thematically, which has given rise to a more coherent presentation than would have been the case otherwise.