Summary

The court struck out parts of the defendants' amended defence and counterclaim, which concerned works done on a restaurant, as they sought to introduce a new concept not contained within the original defence and counterclaim, namely that prior agreement was necessary in respect of payment for additional and/or varied works. The new concept, although a plausible outcome, was not consequential on the claimants' amendments to their particulars of claim and required a formal application to amend by the defendants.

Facts

Held

Application granted in part