Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors

Permission to amend a statement of case is generally granted where amendment will enable the real issues to be tried, unless resulting prejudice cannot be compensated by costs. The emergence of an issue from documents or witness statements creates no general presumption in favour of amendment. Proposed amendments likely to delay trial require particularly careful scrutiny, especially where the claimant obtained interim relief on the basis of a speedy trial. A claimant who fails seriously to prepare for that trial, introduces new issues late, or disregards procedural obligations may lose the benefit of the interim injunction. Discharge of an injunction does not authorise renewed trespass or other tortious conduct; the court may grant fresh interim relief if necessary.

The claimants sought injunctive relief against defendants alleged to have conducted a campaign amounting to harassment under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. They later applied to amend their claim to add allegations concerning other incidents and common-law claims in trespass, nuisance and interference with business.

The fifth defendant applied for relief based on abuse of process, alleging serious failures in disclosure, preparation and compliance with the basis on which an interim injunction had been granted. The court determined the amendment application and the abuse of process application after the originally scheduled speedy trial had been lost.

1. The court granted permission, subject to revision and appropriate terms, to amend the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim substantially in the form proposed. The essential facts had been pleaded previously, and the proposed additional claims could be tried within the proposed summer-term fixture. Any resulting burden on the defendants could be compensated by costs.

2. The mere fact that an issue appeared in a party’s documents or witness statements did not create a presumption that permission to amend should be given. Parties should identify new issues promptly and formulate amendment proposals without delay. The court should adopt a broad, merits-based approach, taking account of the public and private interests involved and the facts of the case, as illustrated by Johnson v Gore-Wood (No. 1) [2002] 2 AC 1.

3. Amendments likely to delay trial required particularly careful scrutiny. Parties should rigorously evaluate whether a new issue justified postponing a manageable trial date and, if so, seek appropriate directions.

4. The claimants’ disclosure and preparation failures were serious. They had introduced or sought to introduce new issues too late, failed properly to identify the relevance of material, mishandled police and CCTV material, and showed a wilful disregard of the importance of maintaining an early trial date. It was just and proportionate to deprive them of the benefit of the interim injunction.

5. The interim injunction was discharged and the claimants were ordered to pay the costs of the amendment application and the relevant proceedings from 23 September 2005 on the indemnity basis. The discharge did not permit renewed trespass or other tortious activity; such conduct could be restrained by fresh interim orders pending trial.