- Rabbits, hats and the public interest—post-trial applications to amend (Bioconstruct GmbH v Winspear)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- The claim
- The timing of Bioconstruct’s application
- What did the court decide?
- The lateness (and timing) of the application
- The public interest and prejudice to the parties
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved an application by Bioconstruct to advance a new cause of action following the circulation of a draft judgment, but before that judgment had been handed down. The court held that there was a ‘heavy burden’ required to justify such a late amendment and this had not been discharged. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The case provides useful guidance on the principles applicable to late applications to amend, including the need to give other parties early notice. Written by Seth Kitson and Thomas Parsons-Munn, Dere Street Barristers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial