Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Ryan Jayberg Ltd

Permission to amend after expiry of limitation requires the proposed new claim to arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim. This is a substantive threshold, not merely a matter of discretion. The court compares the essential factual allegations of the original and proposed claims. New duties, breaches, or materially different factual inquiries may constitute a new cause of action. Amendments may be refused where the claim has no realistic prospect of success, but the court must avoid conducting a mini-trial. Pleadings should not retain allegations which permission to amend has been refused. Pressure-safety regulations concerning the safe design, supply and operation of equipment do not, without more, impose an obligation to provide information about minimum design life.

The claimant sought damages concerning premature corrosion in carbon dioxide refrigeration units supplied and installed by the defendant. It applied to amend its Particulars of Claim to introduce allegations based on the Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 and the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000, including alleged duties to provide information about service life, cleaning, maintenance and control settings.

The defendant opposed the amendments on limitation, prospect of success and pleading grounds. It also applied to strike out corresponding allegations in the Reply and Further Information. The central issues were whether the proposed amendments disclosed realistic claims and, where limitation had expired, whether they arose from the same or substantially the same facts as the claims already pleaded.

1. Amendment principles. Under CPR 17.1, 17.3 and 17.4, the court must exercise its discretion consistently with the overriding objective. It balances prejudice to the applicant against prejudice to the opponent and the proper use of court resources. An amendment with no realistic prospect of success should be refused. The court must assess whether the claim is realistic rather than fanciful, without conducting a mini-trial: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91; ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472.
2. Limitation threshold. Section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2) impose a legal threshold before discretion arises. The essential factual allegations of the original and proposed claims must be compared. A new duty and breach will usually be a new claim; a different breach may depend on fact and degree. The guidance in Co-operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 474, drawing on the authorities cited there, was applied.
3. The proposed statutory case that the defendant had to provide information about minimum service life was a new cause of action. It relied on a different duty, breach and causation inquiry, and did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts. It also had no real prospect of success. The regulations addressed safety through design, manufacture, checking, supply and installation; they did not impose a duty to provide information about design life.
4. The proposed allegations concerning cleaning, maintenance and control settings were further particulars of matters already pleaded and raised by the defence. They had a realistic prospect of success and arose from the same facts. Permission was therefore granted for those amendments, but refused for the minimum-service-life allegations and other specified blue amendments.
5. The court granted permission for the permitted purple, blue, green and red amendments, refused permission for the specified amendments, and directed that the corresponding rejected matters in the Reply and Further Information be struck out or remain consistently with the rulings.

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