May v Thomas

In the case of May v Thomas, the appellant sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent initially pleaded bare denials in their defence. However, the respondent later sought to amend their defence to include a plea that third parties were responsible for the appellant's injuries. This amendment was made after the limitation period for the appellant to bring a claim against the third parties had expired. The appellant argued that the respondent's delay in seeking to amend their defence was unreasonable and that the appellant should not be penalised for this delay. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's delay in seeking to amend their defence was reasonable and whether the appellant acted unreasonably in not bringing an action against the third parties as defendants.

The court considered the relevant principles of law regarding the amendment of pleadings and the impact of delay on the ability to bring a claim. The court noted that the respondent's delay in seeking to amend their defence was significant, but that this alone did not necessarily mean that the amendment should be refused. The court also considered the appellant's conduct in not bringing an action against the third parties as defendants and found that the appellant had acted reasonably in this regard. The court held that the respondent's delay was unreasonable and that the appellant should not be penalised for this delay. The court also held that the appellant's claim against the respondent should proceed, despite the limitation period for the claim against the third parties having expired.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the respondent's defence and ordering that the respondent's amended defence be struck out. The court also ordered that the appellant's claim against the respondent proceed, subject to any other defences that the respondent may have. The court found that the respondent's delay in seeking to amend their defence was unreasonable and that the appellant should not be penalised for this delay. The court also found that the appellant had acted reasonably in not bringing an action against the third parties as defendants and that the respondent should be held responsible for the appellant's injuries.