The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their statement of claim, subject to further clarification of certain pleadings and consequential orders including costs; the final form of leave was reserved pending further submissions. The court accepted that delay in seeking amendments was not adequately explained but held that prejudice to defendants could be addressed by costs orders and case management directions. The ruling confirms that amendments introducing new factual allegations (here, varicose vein risk factors and safety-related statutory guarantee purposes) will be permitted where the opposing party can meet them without significant disruption to the trial timetable. The court left open the precise scope of the statutory guarantee claim, noting uncertainty about whether every particular of negligence could support the fitness-for-purpose allegation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.