The Court of Appeal held that leave to amend a statement of claim outside the limitation period should not have been granted in respect of certain proposed amendments that alleged different causes of injury, because those amendments introduced new causes of action that did not arise out of 'substantially the same facts' as the original claim under UCPR r 376(4)(b). While the injuries pleaded remained the same, the Court found that a broad brush comparison between the original and amended claims was insufficient; each proposed amendment had to be assessed individually, and some could not satisfy the test. The appeal was allowed in part, with specific paragraphs of the amended pleading deleted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 40 later cases that cite this judgment.
13 of the 40 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.