Sir Baliol Brett MR: ‘however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated in costs.’
Judges:
Sir Baliol Brett MR
Citations:
(1883) 32 WR 262
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shoe Machinery Company v Cutlan 1896
The patentee had succeeded at trial in obtaining a declaration of validity and a determination of infringement, and, in subsequent proceedings, the infringer sought to challenge the validity of the patent by raising a fresh argument based on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.247701
