Hague Plant Ltd v Hague & Ors

Permission to amend pleadings should be refused where the proposed amendment is late, disproportionate, prolix, inadequately particularised, or lacks a real prospect of success. The court must balance the applicant’s ability to present the real dispute against prejudice to the other parties, the efficient use of judicial resources, and the overriding objective. A late amendment attracts a heavy justificatory burden, particularly after substantial litigation and expenditure. Pleadings must contain a concise statement of material facts, not submissions, attacks on credibility, or extensive narrative.

Hague Plant Ltd applied to re-amend its Particulars of Claim in proceedings against Martin Hague, Jean Angela Hague and MHH Contracting Ltd. The proposed pleading substantially expanded the case, reintroduced an allegation that Jean Angela was a de facto director, added claims concerning recycling and work performed on MHH sites, challenged earlier factual findings, and relied on alleged admissions and estoppel.

The application followed earlier judgments concerning strike-out and amendment of the Defences, including [2013] EWHC 2443 (Ch) and [2013] EWHC 2931 (Ch). The central issues were whether the amendments were justified, proportionate, properly pleaded and realistically arguable.

1. Disposition. The application to re-amend the Particulars of Claim was refused, except for amendments expressly consented to under CPR 17.1(2)(a). A subsequent application to amend the Claim Form was dismissed.
2. Late amendments. The court must balance determination of the real dispute against prejudice, delay, costs, judicial resources and the interests of other litigants. A late amendment attracts a heavy burden of justification. The proposed pleading was disproportionate after more than two and a half years of litigation and substantial expenditure.
3. Arguability and limitation. An amendment will not be allowed where the proposed case has no real prospect of success. Where a new claim is reasonably arguable to be met by a limitation defence, amendment should not ordinarily be permitted if it would defeat that defence.
4. Pleadings. Under CPR 16.4, Particulars of Claim must contain a concise statement of the material facts relied on. They should not contain submissions, matters for cross-examination, credibility attacks or prolix narrative which obscures the issues.
5. Specific amendments. The proposed revival of the de facto directorship allegation was unjustified. The alleged Grey Books estoppel had no proper basis. Challenges to earlier findings and extensive credit material were impermissible. The new claims were inadequately explained, late and, in substantial respects, prolix and difficult to answer.

First-instance application. The judgment refers to earlier decisions in the same litigation: [2013] EWHC 2443 (Ch) and [2013] EWHC 2931 (Ch).