Charterhouse School v Hannaford Upright

Applications to adduce late expert evidence or amend a pleading require the court to balance the desirability of allowing a reasonably arguable case against prejudice, delay and disruption to the trial. The closer the application is to trial, the less likely it is to succeed. Withdrawal of an admission requires consideration of all the circumstances, including the explanation for the change, good faith, prejudice, prospects of success, responsibility for any prejudice and the public interest in avoiding satellite litigation. Expert evidence may be permitted in a strictly limited form where it addresses an identified issue and causes little prejudice, but broader evidence may be refused where it risks adjournment or a second trial.

The claimant, the Governing Body of Charterhouse School, brought a substantial contractual claim against Hannaford Upright Ltd concerning defective heating and hot-water services installed in boarding houses. Shortly before the fixed trial, Hannaford applied for permission to rely on quantity surveying evidence and to amend its Defence.

The proposed evidence concerned betterment and the valuation of remedial works. The amendments sought, among other matters, to withdraw admissions, introduce reliance on the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999, and raise new allegations about commissioning and recommissioning. The central questions were whether the applications were sufficiently justified and whether their lateness would cause unfair prejudice or jeopardise the trial.

1. Quantity surveying evidence. Permission was granted in a limited form for evidence concerning the valuation of remedial works attributable to admissions of liability in the proposed Amended Defence. The issue was confined, responsive evidence could still be obtained, and prejudice could be controlled by strict directions. Permission was refused for broader evidence concerning betterment and other quantum issues. The application was made only six working weeks before trial, had not been properly prepared, followed two earlier unsuccessful applications, and created an overwhelming risk that the trial would be vacated or quantum adjourned to a second trial.
2. Amendments generally. The court must balance the desirability of allowing a party to plead a factually or legally reasonably arguable case against the prejudice caused by the substance, content or timing of the amendment. The overriding objective and proportionality are relevant. The amendments withdrawing the admission concerning the 30-year requirement were allowed because they concerned contractual construction and caused no material evidential prejudice.
3. 1999 Regulations. Permission to plead reliance on the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 was refused. The amendment was late, lacked an adequate explanation, and risked unfairly depriving the claimant of the opportunity to locate and respond to a material witness. The existing Defence still allowed Hannaford to argue that different temperature requirements applied outside rooms.
4. Withdrawal of admissions and commissioning allegations. Applying the principles stated in Sowerby v Charlton and the dictum in Braybrook v Basildon Thurrock University NHS Trust, the court considered the explanation, prejudice, prospects, responsibility for prejudice and the public interest in avoiding disproportionate litigation. The proposed amendments were inadequately particularised, unsupported by a satisfactory explanation, and likely to require evidence from several commissioning companies. They were refused. In a construction or engineering context, signing off ordinarily implies approval and does not necessarily require a signed document.
5. The court also observed that late applications may leave insufficient time for an appeal to be resolved before trial, thereby undermining the trial process.