The High Court has refused an application by 12 defendants to amend their defence in a dispute over the refusal to renew Jim Fitzharris’s membership of a game hunting compensation fund.
Miss Justice Laffoy dismissed the application, finding the proposed amendments were not necessary to clarify the real issues in the case and would be confusing. Her judgment, delivered on 21 November 2012, dealt only with the request to change the defence; it did not decide the underlying claim or the relief Fitzharris may ultimately receive.
The defendants sought to plead that the claim had become moot after the Kildare Regional and Game Wildlife Council disaffiliated from the National Association of Regional Game Councils on 2 July 2005. They argued that this left Fitzharris with no connection to the national body, no standing to seek the relief claimed and no cause of action against them. Those were proposed arguments, not findings by the court.
Fitzharris’s pleaded case concerns an earlier decision. The judgment summarised his claim as alleging that, on 8 September 2003, the National Association’s executive decided his membership should be declined at the next renewal unless conditions were met. He applied to renew on 20 May 2004, but his proposal was refused. He claims the decision breached contractual rights and seeks, among other things, declarations, injunctive relief and damages. The court did not determine whether those allegations are true.
The judge noted that the disaffiliation occurred after the alleged wrong, after the proceedings began and after the defendants delivered their defence. She said she could not discern how that later event could answer the claim on liability if Fitzharris established wrongdoing. It might affect the form of relief available, she said, but that was a matter for legal submissions at the trial. The proposed amendments addressed liability, not the form of relief.
The judge also criticised the defendants’ explanation for delay: nearly six years passed between the disaffiliation and the application, and two and a half years passed after an earlier ruling on a preliminary issue. However, the basis of her decision was that the proposed amendments were irrelevant to liability, rather than delay or prejudice.
The earlier preliminary ruling had found that, having regard to the National Association’s constitution and rules, there could arguably be a contract between Fitzharris and the association. The present application did not revisit that ruling. The order was to dismiss the application to amend the defence.