Grosvenor Property Developers (in liquidation) v Portner Law Limited

Permission to amend a statement of case under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 17, is a broad discretionary decision. The court must weigh the potential injustice to each party and keep the overriding objective in view.

Lateness is an important factor, particularly where the material supporting the amendment was previously available and the delay is not fully explained. It is not, however, determinative. Permission may properly be granted where the amendments promote a fair determination, do not fundamentally change the claim, and cause less additional prejudice than alleged. The court should disregard matters irrelevant to the amendment application.

The Claimant applied to amend its Particulars of Claim. The application was served on 27 March 2025, approximately ten weeks before trial, and was opposed by the Defendant.

The proposed amendments arose principally from disclosure completed by July 2024. The Claimant argued that they added detail to an existing case and would not affect the trial timetable. The Defendant accepted that the amended Defence and further evidence could be prepared in time, but argued that the eight-month delay was unreasonable and would divert resources from trial preparation.

The central issue was whether, having regard to the delay and the competing prejudice, the interests of justice required permission to amend.

1. Discretion under Part 17. The court had a broad discretion under Part 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The relevant task was to weigh the potential injustice to each party from allowing or refusing the amendments, while bearing the overriding objective in mind. [2]
2. Lateness and explanation. The application was late. Some supporting material had been available in pre-action disclosure, and the remainder had been available by July 2024. The Claimant’s small legal team and its work on security for costs explained the delay to some extent, but did not provide a complete excuse. There was therefore unreasonable delay. [11]
3. Balancing prejudice and fairness. Despite the delay, the interests of justice favoured permission. The claim already contained allegations of dishonesty. The amendments supplied greater specificity and detail but did not fundamentally alter the pleaded case. The disclosed documents would in any event have been relevant to cross-examination at trial. The Defendant had overstated the additional work required, and an amended Defence and further witness statement could be prepared within the available timetable. [12]-[13]
4. Irrelevant matters. Alleged disclosure failures and the earlier security-for-costs application were not relevant to the decision and were disregarded. [7], [14]
5. Order. Permission was granted to amend the Particulars of Claim in accordance with the application. Costs of the hearing and costs arising from the amendments were reserved for determination after further written submissions. [15]