Goode v Martin: CA 13 Dec 2001

The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served a statement of claim based upon the defendant’s statement. The defendants defence asserted a different version of the events.
Held: The Human Rights Act and the CPR gave the courts power to ensure that parties were given a fair trial. Rule 17.4(2) had been interpreted narrowly so as to disallow amendments arising from facts put in issue by the defendant. Section 3 HRA however now gave the courts power which would allow justice to be provided. The rule was not based on any sound reason of public policy. The court should interpret rule 17.4(2) to let the court allow the amendment if the same facts: ‘The court may allow an amendment whose effect will be to add . . a new claim, but only if the new claim arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as are already in issue on a claim in respect of which the party applying for permission has already claimed a remedy in the proceedings.’
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Latham, And, Lord Justice Kay
Times 24-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1899, [2001] 3 All ER 562, [2002] 1 WLR 1828
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6, Human Rights Act 1998 3(1), Civil Procedure Rules 1.2(b) 17.4(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .

Cited by:
CitedSavings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken CA 6-Nov-2001
When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have . .
CitedCoudert Brothers v Normans Bay Limited (Formerly Illingworth, Morris Limited) CA 27-Feb-2004
The respondent had lost its investment in a Russian development, and the appellants challenged a finding that they had been negligent in their advice with regard to the offer documents.
Held: As to the basis of calculation of damages as to a . .
CitedEstate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
CitedRhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .
CitedCharles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd and Another TCC 5-Dec-2006
The land owner sought damages for negligence against its builder and a sub-contractor. Having left the issue too late to complete the pre-action protocol, it issued proceedings, but then had to seek to amend the pleadings to add a further claim out . .
CitedBerezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed . .
CitedS v Suren and Another QBD 10-Sep-2004
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167061