Hoffmans (a firm) v Ahmed

Hoffmans, a firm of solicitors, appeals against a decision of the primary judge in the District Court of Western Australia that refused to strike out an amended writ of summons filed by Mr Ahmed. Hoffmans contends that the indorsement on the original writ was defective, and that the amendment to cure that defect must have added or substituted a new cause of action outside the relevant limitation period. The court was required to decide whether the amendment to the writ of summons involved the addition or substitution of a new cause of action. The Court of Appeal found that the amendment did not add or substitute a new cause of action. The court held that the amendment merely particularised, clarified or expanded the cause of action identified in the original indorsement. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.