Appeal to Privy Council - application for interlocutory injunction to preserve subject matter of appeal - Privy Council having jurisdiction to grant injunction

Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v Department of the Environment of Belize and another: PC (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Sir Martin Nourse and Sir Andrew Leggatt): 13 August 2003

The petitioners unsuccessfully claimed judicial review of decisions by the first respondent approving the construction by the second respondent of a dam in Belize, alleging breaches of environmental laws.

The Court of Appeal of Belize dismissed the petitioners' appeal, granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council but refused an interlocutory injunction to stay construction of the dam pending that appeal.

The petitioners applied to the Privy Council for the injunction, which the respondents contended it had no jurisdiction to grant.

Richard Clayton QC, David Wolfe, Dr Christopher Forsyth and Lois Young SC (of the Belize Bar) (instructed by Richard Buxton, Cambridge) for the petitioners; Edward Fitzgerald QC, Elson Kaseke, S-G, Belize, and Godfrey Smith, A-G, Belize (instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton) for the first respondent; Rabinder Singh QC, Michael Young SC (of the Belize Bar) and Charlotte Kilroy (instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton) for the second respondent.

Held, refusing the application, that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the subject matter of a pending appeal and to ensure that any order which it made on the eventual hearing of the appeal should not be rendered nugatory; that in determining whether to grant such an injunction it had a wide discretion to take the course which seemed most likely to minimise the risk of injustice; and that, having regard to the weakness of the petitioners' case, the extent to which construction was already under way, the cost of delay and the absence of any undertaking in damages, it would not be right to grant such an injunction pending an appeal hearing set for December 2003.

(WLR)

Amendment of claim - judge granting permission to amend after delivering judgment but refusing to adjourn further hearing to permit cross-examination of claimant on new allegation - refusal unjust despite disproportionate costs already incurred

Amos v Bowerbank: CA (Lords Justice Kennedy and Brooke and Mr Justice Holman): 31 July 2003

The claimant brought an action claiming damages against the defendant for failing to carry out her instructions in relation to her shares in a company.

The particulars of claim were amended several times and proceeded for trial on the basis of an allegation of breach of trust.

Just before delivering judgment, the judge indicated that he found the facts for the claimant and the law for the defendant and suggested that the claimant apply to amend the pleadings.

Having delivered judgment, and despite strenuous objection by the defendant, the judge gave the claimant permission to amend to plead breach of contract by the defendant.

He refused to adjourn the hearing to enable the claimant to be cross-examined on the amended pleading, on the basis that the parties had already incurred costs around 234,000 in respect of a claim for just over 18,000 which had taken several days to try.

He subsequently gave a further judgment awarding the claimant the amount claimed.

The defendant appealed.

Kevin Garnett QC (instructed by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw) for the defendant; Chris Quinn (instructed by Benson Mazure & Co) for the claimant.

Held, allowing the appeal, that the court had jurisdiction to permit the pleadings to be amended, even after judgment had been delivered, where the interest of justice so required; that the overriding objective under CPR part 1 was that the court should deal with cases fairly and justly; that that objective could not be served if the defendant were not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the claimant on the amended pleading, despite the fact that the costs incurred on a small claim were disproportionate; and that the case would be remitted for hearing on the amended claim.