Event and Time
Event Description
This case revolves around a civil procedure concerning pleadings where the plaintiffs, who were self-represented litigants, sought to amend their Statement of Claim after several opportunities to do so. Their attempts were complicated by the prior termination of pro bono legal assistance, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the proceedings.
Application and Claims
- The plaintiffs applied for leave to rely on an amended Statement of Claim provided on 8 March 2021 and a proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 17 December 2020.
- The defendants argued against the further amendments, citing issues of delay and abuse of process.
Judicial Decisions
1. The court refused leave for the plaintiffs to rely upon the further iteration of the Statement of Claim provided on 8 March 2021. 2. The court also refused leave for the plaintiffs to file and rely upon the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 17 December 2020. 3. The proceedings were dismissed pursuant to UCPR 12.7 and 13.4 due to a lack of due despatch and abuse of process. 4. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs related to both the application to amend the Statement of Claim and the costs of the proceedings.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiffs' Position:
- Sought to amend their Statement of Claim multiple times citing challenges in representing themselves after the termination of pro bono assistance. - Argued that their claims warranted consideration and necessary amendments were indicative of their attempts to address the issues raised by the court.
- Defendants' Position:
- Contested the amendments on the grounds of delay and abuse of process, arguing that the plaintiffs had been given several opportunities to amend their pleadings but failed to progress the matter in a timely manner. - Requested the dismissal of proceedings and costs associated with the unnecessary delays.