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 to the sale of the company and actions which would threaten the vue of the company. The amendment was not allowed. She appealed.
Held: Courts set out to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases. Whether an amendment should be granted is in the trial judge’s discretion, guided by his assessment of where justice lays. In this case the discretion had not been wrongly exercised.
Lord Justice Staughton Lord Justice Swinton Thomas Lord Justice Judge
 EWCA Civ 5
England and Wales
Cited – Cropper v Smith CA 1883
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 . .
Cited – Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.140364