Source:	All England Reporter
Publisher Citation:	[2001] All ER (D) 376 (Dec)
Court:	Chancery Division
Judge:	Lloyd J
Representation	Richard Sheldon QC, Robin Dicker QC, Fidelis Oditah and Felicity Toube (instructed by Lovells) for the applicants.
	John Brisby QC, Chrstopher Harrison, Richard Hill, Orlando Fraser, and Andrew de Mestre (instructed by Rowe & Maw) for the respondents.
Judgment Dates:	21 December 2001

Catchwords

Statement of claim - Amendment - Leave to amend - Liquidators bringing action against certain companies alleging intent to defraud - Court setting trial date - Applicants seeking to re-amend points of claim and points of reply - Respondents objecting on grounds that re- amendments would raise new matters and add to preparation for trial - Whether re-amendments should be permitted.

The Case

The correct approach on an application to amend a statement of claim was that permission ought to normally be given unless it would cause prejudice to the other side which could not be compensated for in costs. In the instant case, the court would permit the liquidators to re-amend the amended points of claim, but not as they sought.

Practice Areas

• Company Commercial

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis^®Library

• The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
• Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
• Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary