Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd & Anor

Amendments sought during trial should be allowed where they are needed to determine the real dispute, unless the resulting prejudice cannot fairly be compensated in costs or would materially harm the administration of justice. The court must apply particular care at trial, balancing the need to resolve the true issues against the need to protect the opposing party from undue prejudice. Amendments which substantially enlarge or change a claim, are inadequately explained, or require work that cannot realistically be undertaken within the trial timetable may be refused. Less extensive amendments may be allowed where the opposing party can accommodate them and their merits can be investigated at trial.

The claimant applied during the trial to amend pleaded claims in schedules 4C and 4D concerning design and drafting work and associated damages. It sought substantially to increase one claim, reduce and recast another, revise rates derived from an electronic final account, and add expenses. The defendants opposed most of the amendments on grounds of lateness, lack of particularity and prejudice. The central issues were whether the proposed amendments could fairly be accommodated within the ongoing trial and whether they sufficiently identified the case to be met.

1. The application was allowed in part. The proposed amendments to claims 3 and 4 of schedule 4C were refused. The amendments would substantially increase or alter the character of the claims, were inadequately explained, and would cause serious prejudice during a trial already subject to stringent time limits.
2. The governing approach is that amendments should generally be permitted so that the real dispute can be adjudicated, provided resulting prejudice can be compensated in costs and the public interest in the administration of justice is not significantly harmed. Where an amendment is sought during trial, those principles require particular care. The court must balance the need to determine the real issues against the need to protect the opposing party from undue prejudice.
3. The proposed revised rates of payment in schedule 4C were permitted, including the previously omitted 10 per cent mark-up. Although disclosed late and subject to evidential investigation, the defendants could accommodate the amendment without substantial extra work or undue prejudice.
4. The proposed amendment claiming expenses was refused because the expenses were not properly particularised and it was unclear what they were or what they related to.
5. The same amendments to rates, including the 10 per cent mark-up where previously omitted, were permitted in schedule 4D. The court noted its concern about the disproportionate conduct and expense of the wider litigation.

Not stated in the judgment.