Glenluce Fishing Company Ltd v Watermota Ltd

Where a claim has been properly brought within the limitation period, an application to amend the claim form to increase its value is governed principally by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 17.4. A new claim may be added after limitation only where it arises from the same or substantially the same facts. Authorities concerning whether proceedings were brought in time, including cases on court fees, do not require a wholesale revision of the approach to amendment applications. The court should assess prejudice caused by allowing or refusing the amendment. An amendment may be allowed where it substantially alters heads of loss without introducing a new cause of action, particularly where the defendant suffers no prejudice. Abuse of process may justify a different result.

The claimant sought permission to amend its claim form after serving particulars of claim. The claim form valued the claim at approximately £69,694.06, whereas the particulars claimed £162,132.06, together with an unquantified loss-of-profit claim. The defendant resisted the increase, arguing that the claimant could have identified the higher value earlier and had paid an insufficient issue fee before limitation expired.

The central issue was whether authorities concerning when a claim is brought for limitation purposes, and the significance of paying the appropriate court fee, required refusal of permission under rule 17.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

1. Application allowed. The court permitted amendment of the claim form to increase the stated value of the claim.
2. Rule 17.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides the applicable framework. Where limitation has expired, an amendment adding or substituting a new claim may be allowed only if it arises from the same or substantially the same facts as a claim for which a remedy has already been claimed.
3. The decisions concerning when a claim is brought for limitation purposes, including Aly v Aly, (1983) 126 SJ 65, Barnes v St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, [2006] EWCA Civ 1372, and Page v Hewetts, [2012] EWCA Civ 805, address the risk of a party losing rights through an error or delay attributable to the court. The later first-instance decisions did not justify extending that principle to amendment applications.
4. The court confined Page v Hewetts, Lewis v Ward Hadaway, [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch), and Bhatti v Ashgar, [2016] EWHC 1049 (QB), to applications concerning whether claims had been brought within limitation. An abuse of process of the kind considered in Lewis v Ward Hadaway might materially affect the discretion under rule 17.4.
5. The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action, but significantly altered heads of claim. The absence of prejudice to the defendant, together with the substantial potential prejudice to the claimant if permission were refused, justified allowing it.

First-instance decision. No earlier appellate history is stated in the judgment.