A court should not grant leave to amend a pleading into a form which is liable to be struck out. The more serious the allegation that is made, the more clearly satisfied must the Court be that no prejudice will be caused that cannot be compensated for in some satisfactory way, before allowing a proposed amendment.
Parker LJ said: ‘A defendant is entitled to rely in mitigation of damages on any evidence which is properly before the jury and this can include evidence in support of an unsuccessful plea of justification: see the judgment of Neill LJ in Pamplin v Express Newspapers Limited’
Judges:
Parker LJ
Citations:
[1987] 1 All ER 483, Gazette 25-Mar-1987, [1987] 1 WLR 201
Citing:
Cited – Associated Leisure (Phonographic Equipment Co) Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 1970
The defendant sought to be allowed to amend its pleadings to add justification. They now appealed against refusal.
Held: The amendment was allowed. However, in general, in a libel action, if the defendant seeks at a late stage to amend his . .
Cited – Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (2) CA 1988
In considering what evidence can be used in mitigation of damages in defamation, it is necessary to draw a distinction between evidence which is put forward to show that the plaintiff is a man of bad reputation and evidence which is already before . .
Cited by:
Cited – McDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another CA 25-Mar-1994
The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.267708