Bloor (t/a Doncaster Property Services) v Beresford & Anor

In defamation proceedings, amendments adding further publications may be permitted where they arise from the same factual matrix or substantially similar facts and it is equitable to allow them in all the circumstances. The court should consider whether the amendments enable the real dispute to be fairly and fully adjudicated, including where they help establish an alleged pattern of conduct, while recognising that the underlying allegations remain unproved.

A claim-form damages limit may be removed where a claimant advances a fuller loss claim; CPR 16.3(7) does not necessarily prevent a larger award. Expert evidence may be admitted where the issues have become sufficiently complex for expert analysis to assist the court, provided procedural fairness is maintained.

The claimant brought defamation proceedings against a council employee and the local authority, alleging a campaign of defamatory communications that damaged his reputation and business. Before trial, he applied to amend the claim form and particulars of claim, add further publications and heads of damage, remove a £50,000 limitation, rely on expert evidence concerning business losses, update his schedule of loss, plead additional property losses, and introduce a witness statement out of time.

The applications raised the effect of CPR 17.4, the equitable discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980, the damages limitation provisions in CPR 16.3(7), and the requirements of fairness and effective case management.

1. Amendments adding publications. Further publications in a defamation claim constitute separate causes of action. Under CPR 17.4, the court considered whether they arose from the same facts or substantially similar facts. Section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 required the court to decide whether it was equitable to add the new claims in all the circumstances.
2. The amendments were allowed. The alleged publications formed part of an asserted campaign or pattern of denigration. Allowing the claimant to present the fuller picture would assist fair adjudication, particularly where some matters emerged only later. The court also allowed matters known earlier where their inclusion was reasonably justified and did not place the defendants in an unfair position. At this interlocutory stage, the allegations were treated as allegations only and their truth was not determined.
3. Damages limitation. The £50,000 limitation in the claim form was removed. The parties accepted that, under CPR 16.3(7), the limitation would not necessarily prevent the court from making a larger award if justified.
4. Evidence and case preparation. Expert evidence on lost income, lost profits and business value was permitted because the claim had become more complex and expert analysis could assist in calculating losses and testing the evidence. The defendants’ expert was to have equivalent access to information. An updated schedule of loss and a pleaded list of withdrawn properties were allowed, the latter being legitimate tidying up. A witness statement was admitted out of time.

The judgment records earlier interlocutory observations by Master Leslie and Warby J, but no appellate history is stated.