The High Court has allowed Anthony Purcell to amend his personal injury claim against Tesco Ireland Ltd, after finding that the clarification would not unfairly prejudice the defendants.
Mr Purcell’s original summons said he was pushing trolleys at work on 28 April 2014 when he felt a twinge in his back that developed into severe lower back pain. The proposed amendment says he was stocking shelves with magazines when he first felt the pain. It also alleges that heavy lifting duties, including pushing trolleys over time despite medical advice, were a precursor to and reason for his injuries.
The application was first refused by the Circuit Court on 29 June 2017. Mr Purcell appealed, and the High Court heard the appeal de novo. In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the amendment could be allowed as a clarification of the existing claim: the alleged cause remained trolley pushing, while the new detail concerned what Mr Purcell was doing at the moment he first felt pain.
The court rejected the suggestion that the changes introduced a new cause of action, including a repetitive strain injury claim. It also found no prejudice to the defendants. They had taken no steps that would make the case impossible or significantly more difficult to defend, and the amendment was not sought so late that it would disrupt the proceedings or give Mr Purcell an unfair advantage. The court said the defendants could question him at trial about the circumstances that led to the amendment.
The appeal succeeded, and the High Court allowed the amendment to the personal injuries summons. The judgment did not decide whether Mr Purcell’s allegations were true or determine liability or damages.