Bowen LJ: ‘Now it is a well established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights . . I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy, and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or grace . . It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of right.’
Judges:
Bowen LJ
Citations:
(1883) 26 Ch D 700
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mauthoor v THF Delap and Associates Limited CA 2-Oct-1995
The parties agreed for the transfer of shares. The payment cheque was not honoured. The appellant first claimed an absence of consideration, then sought to amend her defence to say that she had acted under economic duress. Threats had been made as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.180938
