Gill v Fiat Group Automobiles UK Ltd

Permission to appeal a case-management decision refusing late amendments to pleadings should be refused where the proposed amendments materially change the case, lack evidential support, or have no real prospect of success. The court may scrutinise the substance of proposed amendments before trial, particularly where the claim concerns alleged fraud and the relevant evidence is already available. A challenge based on inadequate reasons will fail where the lower court’s order, together with the parties’ detailed submissions and materials, makes its reasoning sufficiently clear. Expert evidence dependent on an amendment falls with the refusal of that amendment. Permission also requires a compelling reason for the appeal where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success.

The claimant alleged that the defendant had induced her and her husband to establish a motor dealership through fraudulent misrepresentations. The Deputy Master refused permission to re-amend the Particulars of Claim and to adduce expert evidence. The proposed amendments concerned the meaning and use of PARC data, further allegations relating to the dealership, and additional heads of loss.

The claimant sought permission to appeal, arguing that the Deputy Master had given inadequate reasons and had wrongly concluded that the proposed amendments had no real prospect of success. Permission had previously been refused on paper by Simler J. The central issues were whether the Deputy Master’s reasoning could be identified and whether the proposed amendments justified appellate intervention.

1. Application refused. The claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the Deputy Master’s decision was wrong, and there was no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
2. The complaint that the Deputy Master gave inadequate reasons was unfounded. His order, read with the defendant’s detailed skeleton argument and the evidence before him, enabled the court to understand both the issues considered and the reasons for refusing the amendments.
3. The proposed PARC amendments were not merely clarificatory. They represented successive and substantive changes in the claimant’s case. The contemporaneous documents, the claimant’s earlier pleadings and case summaries, and the absence of supporting evidence justified the conclusion that the revised allegations had no reasonable prospect of success. The Deputy Master was entitled to scrutinise those matters before trial.
4. The proposed additional heads of loss were unsupported by evidence despite the considerable time available to the claimant. The Deputy Master’s reasoning on loss identified the relevant issues and was not arguably wrong.
5. It was open to the Deputy Master to address the most contentious amendments and then consider the application as a whole, having regard to the age of the proceedings, the late stage at which the amendments were sought, and the absence of a good reason for the delay.
6. The application to adduce expert evidence was dependent on permission to amend and therefore also failed.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): the application for permission to appeal was refused.
• Deputy Master Eyre: by order dated 16 October 2014, refused permission to re-amend the Particulars of Claim and to adduce expert evidence.
• Simler J: refused permission to appeal on paper, concluding that the appeal had no real prospect of success and that there was no compelling reason for it to be heard.