The Court refused leave to file a second further amended defence and counterclaim and to join the plaintiff's solicitors as a defendant by counterclaim, where the application was made after the evidence had closed, written closing submissions had been filed, and oral closing submissions had been heard. Connock J held that the defendants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, that the lateness was attributable to the defendants' own conduct rather than the plaintiff's alleged failure to produce documents, and that the prejudice to the plaintiff — including the likely need to change solicitors, material further delay, and additional cost — together with case management considerations under the CPA, weighed decisively against allowing the amendments and joinder at that stage. The Court also found the proposed misleading conduct claim against the plaintiff had little or no reasonable prospect of success on the material before it.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.