Amending Statements of Case and Changing Parties Flashcards
When can a party amend its statement of case without permission from the court?
A. Before it has been served on the other party.
B. At any time before trial, regardless of circumstances.
C. Only if the amendment does not change the nature of the case.
D. Only if the amendment does not affect the opposing party’s case.
A. Before it has been served on the other party.
Explanation:
Under CPR 17.1(1), a party can amend a statement of case before it has been served. However, once served, written consent from the other parties or court permission is required.
What must an amended statement of case always include?
A. A different colour font to indicate the changes.
B. A statement of truth unless the court orders otherwise.
C. A completely new case summary.
D. A witness statement supporting the amendments.
B. A statement of truth unless the court orders otherwise.
Explanation:
Under CPR 22, any amended statement of case must be verified by a statement of truth. This ensures that the party making amendments confirms the accuracy of the changes.
What is the general rule regarding amendments after the limitation period has expired?
A. They are never allowed under any circumstances.
B. They are allowed if the amendment corrects a minor factual error.
C. They are only allowed in limited circumstances, such as when they arise from the same facts as the original claim.
D. They are freely allowed as long as the claim was originally issued within time.
C. They are only allowed in limited circumstances, such as when they arise from the same facts as the original claim.
Explanation:
Under s.35 Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4, amendments after the limitation period are only permitted if they arise out of substantially the same facts as the original claim.
The claimant mistakenly named ‘Green Ltd’ as the defendant instead of ‘Green & Co Ltd’. What is the likely outcome if the claimant seeks to amend after the limitation period has expired?
A. The court will allow the amendment if it was a genuine mistake that did not cause doubt as to the defendant’s identity.
B. The amendment will not be allowed because it changes the defendant entirely.
C. The claimant must apply for permission from the defendant before seeking court approval.
D. The amendment will only be allowed if Green Ltd consents to the change.
A. The court will allow the amendment if it was a genuine mistake that did not cause doubt as to the defendant’s identity.
Explanation:
Under CPR 19.6(3), an amendment after limitation expires is allowed if it corrects a mistake in name, provided there was no reasonable doubt as to the party’s identity.
The claimant wants to amend their particulars of claim three weeks before trial to introduce a new claim for professional negligence. How is the court likely to respond?
A. The amendment will likely be refused as it could prejudice the defendant and delay the trial.
B. The amendment will be freely allowed as long as the claimant pays a fee.
C. The amendment will only be allowed if the defendant consents.
D. The court will allow it, but only if the trial can still go ahead on the original date.
A. The amendment will likely be refused as it could prejudice the defendant and delay the trial.
Explanation:
Under Swain-Mason v Mills & Reeve [2011], late amendments are unlikely to be permitted if they risk unfairness to the defendant or could jeopardise the trial date.
The claimant sues a company for breach of contract but later realises that the individual director, rather than the company, was actually responsible. The claimant applies to amend the claim form to substitute the director after the limitation period has expired. What is the likely outcome?
A. The court will not allow the amendment because it involves substituting an entirely different legal entity.
B. The court will allow the amendment because the director was always intended to be the defendant.
C. The court will allow the amendment if the defendant agrees.
D. The amendment will be granted, provided the claimant pays a penalty.
A. The court will not allow the amendment because it involves substituting an entirely different legal entity.
Explanation:
The Sardinia Sulcis test states that amendments after limitation expiry are only allowed if there was no doubt about the defendant’s identity. A company and an individual are separate legal entities, so the amendment would not be allowed.
A claimant mistakenly sues ‘John Smith Ltd’ instead of ‘Smith & Sons Ltd’, the intended defendant. The claim form describes the defendant as ‘the business responsible for manufacturing faulty goods’. The claimant applies to amend the claim form after the limitation period expires. What is the likely outcome?
A. The amendment will be allowed as the defendant was sufficiently identified in the claim form.
B. The amendment will be refused because the claimant named the wrong company.
C. The amendment will be refused unless ‘John Smith Ltd’ consents.
D. The amendment will only be allowed if there is a valid indemnity agreement between the companies.
A. The amendment will be allowed as the defendant was sufficiently identified in the claim form.
Explanation:
Under The Sardinia Sulcis [1991], if the intended defendant was clearly described (e.g., ‘the manufacturer of the faulty goods’), the court may permit the amendment under CPR 19.6(3)(a).
A claimant sues a company but later discovers the defendant had already gone into liquidation before the claim was issued. What should the claimant do?
A. Apply to amend the claim to substitute the company’s liquidators as defendants.
B. Withdraw the claim and start fresh proceedings.
C. Continue with the claim against the dissolved company.
D. Request that the defendant pay the judgment from its remaining assets.
A. Apply to amend the claim to substitute the company’s liquidators as defendants.
Explanation:
Under CPR 19.6(3)(c), a new party may be substituted if the original party has died or had a bankruptcy/liquidation order made against them.
A claimant seeks to amend their particulars of claim post-limitation to include a claim for personal injury arising from the same incident as their original breach of contract claim. Will this be allowed?
A. Yes, if the court exercises its discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980.
B. No, because personal injury claims have different limitation rules.
C. Only if the defendant consents.
D. Yes, but only if a medical expert confirms the injury.
A. Yes, if the court exercises its discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980.
Explanation:
The court has discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the time limit in personal injury claims if it is equitable to do so.
A claimant realises after the limitation period has expired that they have mistakenly sued ‘Tech Solutions Ltd’ instead of ‘Tech Solutions (UK) Ltd’, which was the company responsible. What is the likely outcome if they apply to amend the claim form?
A. The amendment will be refused because it is a different legal entity.
B. The amendment will be allowed if Tech Solutions Ltd consents.
C. The amendment will only be allowed if the limitation period is extended.
D. The amendment will be allowed if there was no reasonable doubt as to the correct defendant’s identity.
D. The amendment will be allowed if there was no reasonable doubt as to the correct defendant’s identity.
Explanation:
Under CPR 19.6(3)(a) and The Sardinia Sulcis [1991], an amendment may be allowed after the limitation period expires if the intended defendant was sufficiently identified in the claim. If the mistake was only in the name and there was no reasonable doubt about the defendant’s identity, the court can allow the amendment.
