On an application to amend pleadings, the party opposing amendment bears an evidential onus to adduce evidence of prejudice, and a bare assertion that the case might have been conducted differently, without evidence in substantiation, is insufficient to establish irremediable prejudice. Where a party's own concealment of facts prevented the opposing party from raising claims earlier, and the relevant facts were first disclosed by the court's findings, the opposing party cannot rely on the delay in seeking amendment as a basis for refusal. The distinction between 'interest' and 'control' in the context of change of control provisions means that findings on the former do not preclude litigation of the latter.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.