Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd

When deciding an application to amend shortly before a long and complex trial, the court must exercise its discretion in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The court may refuse amendments which generate substantial additional expert and factual work, expand the trial, cause material prejudice, or imperil an established trial timetable. The fact that an amendment may advance a party’s pleaded case does not outweigh those case-management consequences. An amendment should be allowed where the opposing party can address it by the trial date without undue prejudice and without materially disrupting the proceedings.

The defendants applied, shortly before the commencement of a three-month trial, to re-re-re-amend their valuation case in Schedule 2 of the Scott Schedule. The proposed amendments introduced alternative methods of valuing steelwork, increased the pleaded claim by approximately £1.2 million overall, and required consequential amendments. A further amendment concerned quantities said to be the claimant’s responsibility for transporting black steel.

The central issue was whether the amendments could be accommodated without substantial prejudice, disruption to trial preparation, or loss of the listed trial window.

1. Application partly refused. The court refused the amendments to paragraphs 50A–50D and 104.1–104.4 of the defendants’ Schedule 2, together with consequential amendments parasitic upon them. The amendment to paragraph 148, and consequential amendments flowing from it, was allowed.
2. The discretion had to be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Relevant considerations included saving expense, proportionality, fairness, expedition, the complexity and importance of the case, the financial position of the parties, and the appropriate use of court resources.
3. The proposed valuation amendments would substantially disrupt orderly trial preparation. They would require substantial additional expert work and further factual evidence and cross-examination. They would also enlarge the trial by requiring the court to examine two competing valuation methods and the significant difference between them.
4. The amendments were proposed less than one month before trial. They could imperil both the commencement and completion of the existing trial window, causing substantial prejudice to the claimant and creating serious listing difficulties.
5. The paragraph 148 amendment was different. Although inconvenient, it could be addressed by the trial date and would not cause undue prejudice. It was therefore allowed to that limited extent.

The judgment records earlier decisions in the same litigation, including [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC), [2007] EWHC 145 (TCC), [2007] EWCA Civ 443 and [2007] EWCA Civ 1372. The present judgment determined the defendants’ application to amend at first instance.