CHANCERY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) Claire Swain Mason David Jonathan Berry & Neil Gordon Kirby (Executors of CJ Swain Deceased) (2) Claire Swain Mason (3) Abby Swain (4) Gemma Swain (5) Christa Swain |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
Mills & Reeve (A Firm) |
Defendants |
____________________
Mark Simpson QC & Marianne Butler (instructed by Mills & Reeve) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 23rd & 24th November 2010
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Peter Smith J:
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
TAX LIABILITIES
THE DEFENDANTS
THE SPA
THE COMPLAINT
CLAIM BEFORE RE-AMENDMENT
THE CHANGE OF POSITION
RE-AMENDMENT
DISCRETION
"(T105 et seq)….[the amendment] …..(s) a whole new ball game as to precisely what in the circumstances the Defendants were supposed to have done.
In short it seems to me the problem with these amendments is a matter of language, rather than timing, particularly since the result of the first application this morning was to adjourn the matter.
Had there not been arguments about the amendments, and the arguments simply stressed upon their lateness, I might have had acceded to the application.
But it does seem to me that there is some objection to those substantial proposed amendments, but the objection is more to the wording.
The course I propose to adopt therefore in these circumstances on the basis that the wording it seems to me at this stage does need a rethink, is to put counsel to his election.
I can either rule, refuse the application at this stage, simpliciter, or invite Mr Mathew QC to reconsider the wording of the proposed amendments and adjourn the application to allow further amendments to come forward, and the language to be rethought and to adjourn the application to a different date…….It is right that the Defendants should know precisely what it is the case that they come and are supposed to meet."
PRINCIPLES AS TO AMENDMENTS
"the overriding objective (of the CPR) is that the court should deal with cases justly. That includes, so far as practical, ensuring that each case is dealt with not only expeditiously but also fairly. Amendments in general ought to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon provided that any prejudice to the other party caused by the amendment can be compensated for in costs, and the public interest of the administration of justice is not significantly harmed"
THE CLAIMANTS' POSITION