Tuesday 14th December 2021
The Defendant appeals against the order made by Pepperall J dated 8/3/21 whereby he struck out para 80 to 83 of the Reply of the Respondent/Claimant but then granted C permission to amend its particulars of claim in response to D’s strike out application.
The case concerns the cladding system on high -rise tower blocks.
Relying on the CA’s decision in Goode v Martin, the D sought to strike out para 80 to 83 of C’s Reply on basis that C could not raise a new claim by way of Reply.
The C opposed that application but in the alternative sought permission to amend its particulars of claim to plead its case on combustible cladding.
D argued that permission to amend should be refused as this was an attempt to plead a new claim based on new facts after the expiry of the limitation period.
The judge struck out the new claim from the Reply but gave C permission to amend its partics of claim to plead the claim. He disagreed with D’s construction on Goode.