The Court refused IG Markets leave to amend its counterclaim after trial and delivery of reasons, holding that the proposed amendment did not reflect the manner in which the case was conducted at trial. The Court found that the parties had consistently distinguished between the admitted error in making a test market available for trading and the pleaded mistake as to a fundamental term or subject matter of the contracts, and that IG Markets could not now conflate the two. Even if the amendment had reflected the trial conduct, the Court would have refused leave on discretionary grounds including the need for further submissions and supplementary reasons, inconsistency with existing findings that the transactions related to an 'Instrument', unexplained delay, and the deficient form of the proposed amended pleading.
The full text is available to signed-in members.