Findlay v Dshe Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2); Mastoris v Dshe Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 3)

In the case of Findlay v Dshe Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) and Mastoris v Dshe Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 3), the Court was required to determine the admissibility of late amendments to the pleadings of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to include claims that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to defraud them, which was not originally pleaded. The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing that they were not a logical extension of the existing case and would result in prejudice to the defendants if granted.

The Court found that the proposed amendments were not a logical extension of the case as already pleaded and would require the defendants to conduct a new factual enquiry. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had not served any new evidence in respect of the new questions for factual enquiry that would be required if the amendments were allowed. The Court held that allowing the amendments would result in prejudice to the defendants, as they would be required to defend a new case that they had not been prepared for. The Court therefore refused to grant leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings.

The Court further found that the plaintiffs' applications were brought too late, as the amendments were made well after the pleadings had been closed. The Court held that late amendments are only permissible in exceptional circumstances, and the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that such circumstances existed in this case. The Court therefore dismissed the applications for leave to amend the pleadings.

In summary, the Court refused to grant leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to include claims of conspiracy to defraud, finding that the proposed amendments were not a logical extension of the existing case and would result in prejudice to the defendants. The Court also found that the applications were brought too late and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would warrant allowing the amendments.