At the conclusion of the evidence, the claimant sought to amend her claim to include an alternative factual basis of liability based not on her own evidence but on that of one of the police officers with whom she had been struggling in a car.
Held: The grounds for refusing permission were not sufficient to outweigh the justice of permitting the claimant to advance an alternative case based upon, or close to, the defendant’s evidence. Sedley LJ said: ‘It is not uncommon for a version of the facts to emerge as a possible deduction from the evidence which has so far been neither side’s pleaded case but which one side wants now to plead as an alternative basis, either of liability or of defence. In my experience it is normal and proper practice in the County Courts, and in the High Court too, to allow an amendment to such effect at the conclusion of the evidence if, on any terms which are appropriate as to costs or recall of witnesses, this can be done without injustice to the other party or parties.’
Judges:
May LJ, Sedley LJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1632
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Binks v Securicor Omega Express Ltd CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury based upon one version of events. The defendant pleaded another, contrary, set of events and objected when the claimant sought to plead an alternative case to apply if the court found the defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185832
