[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Groarke v Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1676 (QB) (22 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/1676.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 1676 (QB) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE BOW COUNTY COURT
AN ORDER OF DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD CLARKE
DATED 8 NOVEMBER 2013
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a High Court Judge
____________________
ANDREW GROARKE |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
CECIL FONTAINE |
Defendant |
____________________
Helen Hobhouse (instructed by Plexus Law) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 2 May 2014
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Sir David Eady :
The nature of the Defendant's appeal
The principles to be applied
"As the authorities make clear, it is a question of striking a fair balance. The factors relevant to doing so cannot be exhaustively listed since much will depend on the facts in each case. However, they are likely to include:
(1) the history as regards the amendment and the explanation as to why it has been made late;
(2) the prejudice which will be caused to the applicant if the amendment is refused;
(3) the prejudice which will be caused to the resisting party if the amendment is allowed;
(4) whether the text of the amendment is satisfactory in terms of clarity and particularity."
The factual background
"You are aware that the Claimant holds the Defendant fully liable for the accident. However, we await the Defendant's witness statement to enable us to consider liability further."
Although somewhat cryptic, that rather suggests that discussions were being anticipated on the extent of liability in the light of the witness statement. It was reasonable to suppose that the statement was going to repeat or expand upon the criticism of the Claimant's driving, as contained in the defence served eight months earlier. The witness statement was served eventually on 12 July (dated four days earlier). Its content was consistent with that pleading, attributing causation to the Claimant's driving and adding that "… he was travelling too fast on a busy road in poor light, his helmet visor still down".
The reasons for refusing permission to appeal
My conclusions