Ahmed & Anor v Ahmed

An application to amend a statement of case is not an application for relief from sanctions merely because it seeks the court’s indulgence. The court may permit an amendment at any stage under the established principles governing amendments.

A late amendment which raises a new substantive case should be clearly drafted and particularised. Different considerations apply where the amendment merely brings the pleadings into line with a case already known to the opponent. The court may then adopt the procedure which best serves the interests of justice.

When deciding whether an amendment or refusal of further evidence caused unfairness, the court must examine the proceedings as a whole, including the parties’ prior knowledge, earlier opportunities to obtain permission and whether the proposed evidence would require an adjournment.

The deceased’s children disputed the validity of a document produced as his will. Miss Recorder McAllister, sitting in the County Court at Central London, found that the document was a forgery and pronounced against its validity.

The defendants appealed on the grounds that the Recorder had unfairly allowed the claimants to plead forgery on the first day of trial, had prevented an adequate responsive amendment and had refused expert handwriting evidence. They also complained that they had received no opportunity to answer evidence concerning the date of issue of Bangladeshi stamps attached to the document.

The central issue was whether those decisions amounted to a serious procedural irregularity or denied the defendants a fair trial, having regard to the full procedural history and their prior knowledge that the document’s authenticity was disputed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The amendment expressly alleging forgery did not introduce a new case. For at least six months the claimants had openly disputed the document’s authenticity, and the defendants had repeatedly sought permission to obtain handwriting evidence. The Recorder properly treated the amendment as a formality bringing the pleadings into line with the known case rather than as a source of surprise or prejudice.

2. An application to amend pleadings is not necessarily an application for relief from sanctions. There was no sanction or request for an extension of time in this case. Attempts to force every request for an indulgence into the relief-from-sanctions framework promote excessive formality, satellite litigation and unnecessary cost.

3. Swain Mason v Mills & Reeve [2011] 1 WLR 2375 did not require the judgment to be set aside because no fully drafted amendment had been produced. Its observations concerned a late amendment raising a new substantive point, where clear drafting and full particulars are important. A formal amendment may instead be handled in whatever manner best serves the interests of justice in the circumstances.

4. The Recorder had granted the defendants permission to amend their defence so that the allegation of forgery was put in issue. The complaint that she refused such permission was therefore factually unfounded.

5. The Recorder was entitled to refuse expert handwriting evidence. The defendants had known since March 2014 that the signature was disputed, had twice unsuccessfully applied for permission and had not appealed those refusals. Admitting the evidence on the first day of trial would inevitably have required an adjournment.

6. The defendants had known of the Bangladeshi stamp issue since disclosure four months before trial. They neither sought permission to call answering evidence nor requested additional time. They could not criticise the Recorder on appeal for failing to grant relief which they had never sought.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The Recorder had properly allowed the formal amendment alleging forgery and had been entitled to refuse late expert evidence.

2. County Court at Central London: Miss Recorder McAllister found that the alleged will was a forgery and pronounced against its validity.

3. Earlier proceedings: The claim seeking revocation of the letters of administration was issued in the Family Division of the High Court, transferred to the Chancery Division and then transferred to the County Court at Central London.