This neat little judgement is a good reminder to us all about the benefit of getting your pleadings correct at the start. There is unfortunately little information regarding the facts of the case, or the precise pleadings, in the judgement. The pursuer seeks reparation for losses sustained due to the defenders failure to clear pathways of ice and snow. The pursuer sought to amend his pleadings, both in relation to the facts and duties averred, approximately 7 years after the original accident. The record which the pursuer sought to amend was lodged on 2 December 2005, and the minute of amendment lodged on 29 November 2007. The defenders took issue with certain parts of the minute, arguing that they in effect introduced new issues, and that given the time that elapsed, they would be prejudiced in carrying out further investigation.

Sheriff McLernan discusses the various amendments essentially against the background of the prejudice that the amended averments would cause to the defenders, and public policy. Most of the additional factual amendments were not allowed due to the prejudice that the defenders would face in investigating the facts at such a late stage. However, the addition of a statutory case was not thought to be a “radical alteration to the pursuer’s case”, and was allowed. Public interest was served by the case being properly focussed. “While there is a public interest in the prevention of delay”, the sheriff points out, “ there is also a public interest in avoiding an unsatisfactory conclusion arising from confusion from poorly prepared presentation of the issues involved.”

Ross Slater, Partner, Digby Brown