Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The rule in Henderson v Henderson addresses abusive re-litigation. It cannot be used to oppose a late amendment in the existing action merely because the amended issue could have been pleaded earlier. Amendment applications are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules and the established principles of case management.

Amendments are consequential where they arise from, and give financial effect to, issues already determined at a preliminary trial. They should be allowed where necessary to resolve the true issues between the parties and do not conflict with the overriding objective. Questions about interest arising from delay may be reserved for trial.

Ruttle claimed further sums from the Secretary of State arising from work undertaken during an outbreak of classical swine fever. Following a trial of preliminary issues, Ruttle applied to re-re-amend its particulars of claim to plead claims arising from the court’s findings on plant-hire rates, notice to take plant off hire and payment dates.

The defendant opposed the amendments, contending that they were barred by the rule in Henderson v Henderson and inconsistent with the overriding objective in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The central questions were whether the amendments were consequential on the preliminary issues judgment and whether the court could refuse them on those grounds.

1. Permission granted. Jackson J allowed all the proposed re-re-amendments to the particulars of claim.
2. The rule in Henderson v Henderson is directed to re-litigation. Its mischief is the bringing of a second action where the first should have sufficed. The authorities applying the rule involved at least two separate actions. It was therefore unavailable as a ground for opposing an amendment in the original action. The court’s powers in relation to amendments are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and the established law on amendment applications.
3. The amendments concerning star rates were consequential because the preliminary judgment required certain items of plant to be valued at rates which might have to be assessed by the court. The amendments concerning seven days’ notice for taking plant off hire followed from an issue which had been fully argued and decided, and which the claimant had indicated it would pursue if successful.
4. The proposed payment-date amendments were parasitic upon those amendments and were also consequential. The parties’ earlier compromise concerning payment dates did not extend to newly pleaded claims unless they agreed otherwise.
5. The amendments did not conflict with the overriding objective in rule 1.1. They were necessary to enable the true issues to be resolved and to give financial effect to the preliminary judgment. The court declined to impose a condition preventing interest before May 2007; the substantive interest issues, including the effect of the claimant’s five-month delay, were matters for trial.
6. Ruttle was ordered to pay the costs of issuing the application, the amendment costs and the consequential amendment costs. Each party was to bear its own costs of preparing for and attending the application hearing. No further preliminary or generic issues were to be tried; the outstanding issues were to be determined at a single trial.