J L Holdings does not afford a litigant licence to pursue any arguable claim regardless of the grossness of their disregard for fair play. Late amendments raising fraud on the eve of trial, without satisfactory explanation, may constitute 'overreaching' justifying disallowance even where the party had a technical right to amend without leave. Where a proposed s 228 Property Law Act case alleges fraudulent intent based on a commercial provision in a shareholders' agreement that was for the mutual benefit of both parties, and the shares were always subject to compulsory transfer, the case is not fairly arguable. The absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay in amending is a relevant consideration not necessarily outweighed by the absence of prejudice other than delay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.