Trafigura PTE Ltd & Anor v Prateek Gupta & Ors

Permission to make a very late substantive amendment to a statement of case requires a careful balancing exercise under the overriding objective. The applicant bears a heavy burden, particularly where the amendment may threaten the trial date or require disclosure and witness evidence to be revisited. The court must assess the position at the hearing date, considering the strength and clarity of the proposed case, the explanation for delay, prejudice to the opposing party, wasted and consequential work, pressure on trial preparation, and the interests of other court users. Amendments which are vague or insufficiently particular, especially in fraud proceedings, may properly be refused.

The claimants alleged that the defendants had dishonestly misrepresented the quality of metals supplied under a series of trades. The defendants sought permission to amend their Defence shortly before the fixed six-week trial, principally to plead further matters concerning the claimants’ knowledge of the relevant arrangement.

Several amendments were agreed. The court had to determine whether the remaining disputed amendments should be permitted, having regard to their lateness, the proposed case’s clarity, the effect on disclosure and witness statements, the trial fixture, and the competing prejudice to the parties and other court users.

1. Discretion and governing approach. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 17.1(2)(b), the court had discretion to allow or refuse the amendments. The overriding objective under CPR 1.1(2) was of central importance. The court had to balance the injustice to the applicant if permission were refused against the injustice to the respondent and other court users if it were granted.
2. Timing and prejudice. The application was assessed as at the hearing date. Lateness was relative, but a substantive amendment in the run-up to trial was late and, where it threatened the trial fixture, very late. The applicant therefore bore a heavy burden to explain the delay and demonstrate why justice required the amended case to proceed.
3. Consequential effects. The court had to consider not merely whether consequential steps could technically be completed, but whether the amendment would impair proper trial preparation. Reopening extensive disclosure, revisiting witness statements, wasting completed work, and imposing additional pressure during the final preparation period were substantial considerations. The possible effect on other court users also mattered.
4. Particularity. The clarity and focus of the amendment had to be assessed. The proposed amendments were materially general and vague, particularly in the context of fraud, and did not identify the additional individuals or the extent of their alleged involvement with sufficient precision.
5. Disposition. Although the amendments advanced a proper or stronger potential defence and their refusal would prejudice the defendants, the delay was attributable to their own conduct. The prejudice to the claimants, including the likely need to revisit disclosure and witness statements and the possible jeopardy to the trial date, outweighed that prejudice. Permission to make the disputed amendments was refused.