Where a proposed amendment to a third party statement of claim adds earlier contracts that form part of a continuous trading process with the same parties involving the same product and the same alleged defects, the amendment arises out of the same or substantially the same facts and does not introduce a 'new cause of action' for the purposes of the rule in [name withheld] v [name withheld]. A plea that defects may be inferred from the consequences of using a product is not a new claim of res ipsa loquitur but merely notification of inferential reasoning already available under existing negligence claims.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.