||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 444 (Mar)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Pill, Longmore LJJ and Sir Martin Nourse
||Joe Smouha and Samuel Wordsworth (instructed by Howard Kennedy) for the claimant.
||Stephen Nathan QC (instructed by Landau & Scanlan) for the defendant.
||27 March 2002
Pleading - Amendment - Application for leave to amend - Abandonment - Claimant omitting claims from schedules attached to points of claim - Defendant arguing claims abandoned - Judge granting claimant's application for leave to amend - Whether judge in error - CPR 17.4(2).
Even if the common law principle relating to the abandonment of claims had survived into the CPR era, it would not preclude a judge from exercising his discretion to allow amendments to be made to a claim under CPR17.4(2). The Court of Appeal had to exercise restraint before interfering with a case management decision. In the instant case, the judge had plainly been entitled to find that amendments to the claim sought by the claimant arose from the same facts as the earlier claim and clearly fell within CPR17.4(2).
- 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