Joseph v Spencer (No 2)

In *Joseph v Spencer (No 2)*, the applicant sought leave to amend a summons that originally sought declaratory relief. The dispute concerned proposed amended pleadings that contained significant differences from the current pleadings, including allegations of dishonesty, collusion, and abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the amended pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, whether they were embarrassing, and whether there was an arguable evidential basis for the serious allegations made. Additionally, the court considered the dictates of justice, including whether the applicant's changes in position caused significant injustice or procedural unfairness, and the costs associated with settled strike-out motions and a motion to re-plead.

The court, presided over by Price AJA, granted leave to amend the summons in part, allowing specific declaratory orders, certain grounds, and parts of the "Details of Decision" section to proceed. However, leave was refused for other proposed declaratory orders, specific numbered orders, further paragraphs under "Details of Decision," and several grounds, including allegations of perversely acting and specific particulars within those grounds. The court struck out substantial portions of the proposed amendments, indicating that not all of the applicant's proposed changes met the threshold for amendment.

The applicant was directed to file an amended summons reflecting the granted and refused amendments within seven days, with renumbering to ensure consistency. Furthermore, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents, and the third respondent, for both the strike-out motions settled on 10 March 2025 and the motion heard on 4 June 2025, indicating that the applicant's conduct in these matters was deemed unreasonable.