Ingot v Macquarie [No.3]

The case of Ingot v Macquarie [No.3] involved an application for leave to further amend a summons. The plaintiffs sought to amend their summons in an attempt to address deficiencies in their initial pleadings. The application was brought before the court, which had to consider the various legal issues that arose from this request. The primary issues for determination were whether the court should grant leave for an amendment outside the limitation period, whether the power of amendment in Part 20 Rule 1 was constrained by Part 20 Rule 4, and if the leave should be refused due to insufficient particulars or other factors such as the impact on the hearing date and the defendants' costs.

The court examined the plaintiffs' application for leave to amend their summons in light of the procedural rules governing amendments to pleadings. The court considered whether the power to amend in Part 20 Rule 1 was subject to the limitations imposed by Part 20 Rule 4, which sets out circumstances where leave to amend might be refused. The court also weighed the potential prejudice to the defendants, including the impact on their costs and the feasibility of vacating the hearing date, as well as the nature of the proposed amendments and whether they constituted a form of "bargaining" with the court. The court ultimately determined that the defendants would be adequately compensated for the costs incurred by the amendment through an indemnity costs order and found that the plaintiffs' amendments did not significantly prejudice the defendants' case. Consequently, the court decided to grant leave for the plaintiffs to further amend their summons, despite the potential issues raised by the defendants.