Jones & Ors v Stenventon & Anor

Pleadings define the issues for trial and the extent of the dispute. A party cannot rely on a materially specific allegation under a general pleading where the opposing party was not given proper notice and would suffer evidential prejudice. This applies even where the evidence might support the allegation and the court has considered related factual matters. Once permission to amend has been refused, the same new case cannot be introduced indirectly through the judgment. An appellate court will not uphold liability on an alternative factual or legal basis that was not properly pleaded and addressed at trial.

Three claimants were injured in an explosion at a dry-cleaning shop and obtained judgment against the shop owner and JLA Ltd. Liability was apportioned 80 per cent to the owner and 20 per cent to JLA.

JLA appealed. The owner sought permission to cross-appeal to uphold the judgment on an alternative basis, namely that JLA had supplied or caused the use of an unsuitable oil and should have warned of the danger. The trial judge had refused a late amendment adding that allegation, but nevertheless found JLA liable on a failure-to-warn pleading. The central issues were whether that finding was supportable and whether the alternative case could be maintained under the unamended pleading.

1. Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed. The judgment against JLA was set aside. The owner alone was liable to compensate the claimants in full.
2. The trial judge’s finding that JLA was liable because it failed to warn the owner when supplying Nuray 150 oil was unsupportable. Requiring a storeman, receiving a request for a particular oil, to investigate its intended use and possess the necessary technical knowledge would impose an unrealistic burden.
3. The alternative case could not succeed under the original pleading. The proposed allegation was that JLA had caused the owner to use an oil which it ought to have appreciated was unsafe without careful maintenance. That was materially different from the general allegation that JLA failed to warn that the machine was or might not be safe to use.
4. The purpose of pleadings, both before and under the Civil Procedure Rules, is to define the issues so that each party can prepare for trial. The court applied the statement of principle in McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 775, 793. The owner, who knew the dealings with JLA, needed to plead specifically that JLA was blamed for the use of the unsuitable oil.
5. The refusal of permission to amend was within the trial judge’s discretion and could not be circumvented. The judge had recognised that the proposed allegation was a potentially radical and late shift requiring further consideration. Allowing it through the judgment was effectively to admit by the back door what had been excluded by the ruling on amendment.
6. It was unnecessary to determine whether the evidence established the factual matters required for the alternative case, including causation of the oil’s use and reliance on a warning.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Stoke-on-Trent District Registry: judgment for each claimant against both defendants, with liability apportioned 80 per cent to the first defendant and 20 per cent to JLA Ltd.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal allowed with costs here and below; cross-appeal dismissed. The judgment against JLA Ltd was set aside.