Key Facts
- •Claimant argued that contracting out of section 10 of the 2015 Insurance Act meant a breach of warranty voided the contract, unless the defendant proved 'normal circumstances'.
- •Claimant sought to amend their case, arguing 'void' should be construed as 'voidable', implying defendant waived the breach by election.
- •Amendment also proposed a presumption of defendant's knowledge of their right to avoid, based on their legal representation.
- •Amendment was filed just before trial, in response to defendant's skeleton argument.
- •Defendant argued the amendment introduced a new legal field requiring further investigation and evidence.
Legal Principles
Construction of contract terms and statutory interpretation (Section 17 of an unspecified Act).
High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Commercial Court
Estoppel, waiver, and election.
High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Commercial Court
Permission to amend pleadings.
Civil Procedure Rules (implied)
Outcomes
The court refused permission to amend the claimant's pleadings.
The proposed amendment introduced a new legal argument too late in the proceedings, requiring further investigation and potentially additional evidence from the defendant. The court found the amendment was an afterthought and not necessitated by the defendant’s skeleton argument. The proposed construction of 'void' as 'voidable' was unnecessary and opened up a significantly different legal field that would disproportionately impact court and party resources.