When assessing an application to amend a defence close to trial, the prejudice to the opposing party from the amendment itself must be distinguished from the prejudice flowing from any consequential vacation of the trial date. A plaintiff's own deficient discovery that contributed to the lateness of the amendment application is a significant factor weighing against a finding of prejudice. The identification of further preparatory steps a party could take does not of itself justify vacating a long-standing hearing date; the steps must be shown to be necessary for a fair hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.