The High Court has allowed Kristina Kandaurova to amend her personal injury claim against Circle K Energy Group Limited and refused the company’s applications to dismiss, stay or strike out the proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2021, Mr Justice Max Barrett said there was no relevant prejudice to Circle K from the proposed amendments. The court ordered the amendment sought in item 1 of Ms Kandaurova’s notice of motion.
Ms Kandaurova claims she tripped over a protruding kerb in a vehicle forecourt at one of Circle K’s premises on or about 26 August 2016 and suffered serious injuries. The judgment records that she received authorisation under section 14 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Acts. A personal injury summons was issued and filed on 10 May 2019, and Circle K entered an appearance that day.
Her husband, an architect, had drafted the summons, which the judgment describes as deficient in several respects. After retaining Barry Lyons Solicitors, Ms Kandaurova applied under Order 28, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to amend the claim’s indorsement.
Her solicitor’s affidavit said the original wording reflected the perspective of an architect or inspecting engineer more than that of a legal representative. It said the proposed changes would clarify the issues in dispute, simplify the claim and remove extraneous or irrelevant pleadings, without raising additional issues or causing prejudice to Circle K. These were submissions in support of the application.
Justice Barrett said amendment applications should generally be allowed where they bring the real issues in dispute before the court, provided they do not cause irreparable prejudice to the other party. He found no such injury here. The only conceivable prejudice, he said, was the possibility that Circle K might lose a success it could have achieved if the amendment were refused; he said that was not the relevant type of prejudice.
Circle K had separately sought orders to dismiss the claim or stay the proceedings until Ms Kandaurova complied with section 10(2) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. It also sought to strike out the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail or for want of prosecution. The judge noted that Circle K’s application relied on the pleadings before amendment. Having regard to the amended pleadings and the conduct of the proceedings, he found no basis for any of the orders sought.
The judgment permits the specified amendment and rejects Circle K’s applications. It does not determine the underlying personal injury claim.