Leave to serve out of the jurisdiction had been granted in relation to a bill of exchange which had been erroneously described in the statement of claim indorsed on the writ.
Held: The Court upheld the order giving leave to amend the writ.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘Leave was given for the issue of the writ so indorsed, and service of notice of it out of the jurisdiction; such notice was duly served upon the defendant abroad; and the defendant has in due course appeared in this country. It is argued that, under these circumstances, the writ cannot be amended. Why not? The rules with regard to amendments appear in terms to apply to such a case. It is contended, nevertheless that there cannot be an amendment, because the writ was for service, and has been served, out of the jurisdiction. But the defendant has now appeared in this country; and I can see no reason why an amendment such as this should not be made, just as in the case of a writ served within the jurisdiction. We were pressed with the possibility that, if such a writ could be amended, it might be amended so as to introduce a cause of action in respect of which leave could not have been originally given for service out of the jurisdiction. That is not the present case. When that case arises, there may be good reason for refusing to allow the amendment.’
Judges:
Lord Esher MR, A L Smith LJ
Citations:
[1894] 2 QB 450
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.441565