Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 03
1 of the White Book?
2
3 MR. MORRIS: We do not have copy of the White Book. (Handed).
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, it is rule 5(1) that one is principally
6 concerned with, we submit: "Subject to Order 15, rules 6,
7 7 and 8". My Lord, those Rules deal with changes of or
8 substitution of parties. "... following provisions of this
9 ruling, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow
10 the plaintiff to amend his writ, or any party to amend his
11 pleading, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be
12 just and in such manner (if any) as it may direct".
13
14 My Lord, one notices subrule 5 on page 369. I merely draw
15 your Lordship's attention to it in order to say only this,
16 that these proposed amendments do not raise a new cause of
17 action. They propose to reformulate or clarify the way in
18 which an existing cause of action is put in the Statement
19 of Claim. Even if they were, in our respectful submission,
20 it would not matter but they do not, in fact, do that.
21
22 My Lord, might I then take your Lordship to page 371, the
23 notes at 20/5-8/6?
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
26
27 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, this is all very familiar territory and
28 perhaps again -----
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have read it through recently, but it seems
31 to me perhaps you should read out the parts, relevant
32 parts, as you obviously propose to do so that the
33 Defendants can see and hear them.
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I will read the whole relevant passage
36 which goes on to the next page: "It is a guiding principle
37 of cardinal importance on the question of amendment that,
38 generally speaking, all such amendments ought to be
39 made'for the purpose of determining the real question in
40 controversy between the parties to any proceedings or of
41 correcting any defect or error in any proceedings'.
42 (Jenkins L.J. in
43 G.L. Baker Ltd v. Medway Building & Supplies Limited). 'It
44 is a well-established principle that the object of the
45 Court is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to
46 punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their
47 cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their
48 rights... I know of no kind of error or mistake which is
49 not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the Court ought
50 not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the
51 other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of
52 discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in
53 controversy, and I do not regard such amendment as a matter
54 of favour or grace ... It seems to me that as soon as it
55 appears that the way in which a party has framed his case
56 will not lead to a decision of the real matter in
57 controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to
58 have it corrected if it can be done without injustice, as
59 anything else in the case is a matter of right'. (per
60 Bowen L.J. in Cropper v. Smith (1883) 26 Ch.D. 700".
