|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1969) 1 CLR 555
1969 November 4
[JOSEPHIDES, J.]
DORIC CYPRIAN LINES LIMITED,
Applicants-Defendants,
v.
ARGIRIS MARITIME (LEBANON) S.A.L.,
Respondents-Plaintiffs.
(Admiralty Action No. 19/67).
Practice—Pleadings—Amendment—Statement of defence—Delay—Death of Managing Directors of defendant firm and resulting inability of successors to trace information on which present defence based—Application for amendment on this ground, filed two years after said death—Delay unjustified—Amendment refused.
Amendment of pleading—Delay in applying—Amendment refused—See above.
Pleading—Amendment—Delay in applying—Amendment refused—See above.
Admiralty action—Pleading—Amendment etc. etc.—See above.
The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of Josephides, J., refusing the application on the part of the defendants in this admiralty action for amendment of their defence.
Application.
Application for leave to amend the statement of defence in an adminalty action whereby the plaintiffs claimed the sum of £786.390 arising out of disbursements incurred by plaintiffs, in relation to two Motor Vessels belonging to the plaintiffs and chartered by the defendants.
A. Hadjioannou with C. Indianos, for the applicants.
E. Shiakalli (Miss) for Chr. Demetriades, for the respondents.
The following judgment was delivered by:
Josephides, J.: This is an application by the defendants to amend their defence. The application was filed on the 13th October, 1969. The action was filed originally by the plaintiffs on the 29th November, 1967, and the statement of claim on the 26th February, 1968. The Managing Director of the Defendant Company died in an air-accident on the 12th October, 1967. The defence was filed on the 12th March, 1968.
The case was fixed for directions on the 7th March, 1969, but, as there was no appearance on that day by the plaintiffs, if came on before me for directions on the 9th April, 1969. Directions were then given for the preparation of the case for hearing and, subsequently, the parties negotiated certain terms of settlement which are embodied in a letter addressed to the Chief Registrar by the plaintiffs' advocate on the 2nd July, 1969, informing him that negotiations fell through and in the circumstances further directions of the Court were sought. On the 21st September, 1969 counsel appeared before the Court but Mr. Indianos, who handled the case for defendants, had not given proper instructions to his colleague who represented him and the application was adjourned to the 6th October, 1969, when defendants' counsel gave notice that he proposed to apply to have his defence amended. That was just under two years after the death of the Managing Director of the Defendant Company.
The main ground of the application today for the amendment of the defence is that the Managing Director died suddenly and that his successors were unable to trace the information on which the present defence is based. They traced such information very recently, two years after the death of the Managing Director.
On the affidavit before me I am not satisfied that this delay of over two years is justified and I, would not, therefore, be prepared to allow the application at this late stage, as regards the proposed paragraph 5 of the defence.
The plaintiffs do not object to the proposed amendment of paragraphs 6 and 7.
In the result the application for amendment with regard to the proposed paragraph 5 of the defence is dismissed, and with regard to the proposed paragraphs 6 and 7 of the defence the application is allowed; but the applicants-defendants will have to pay the costs of today and all costs thrown away as a result of this amendment.
The defendants shall, within 10 days from today, file in Court and deliver to the other side their amended statement of defence together with a formal copy of this order.
The plaintiffs shall file and deliver their reply, if any, within 10 days after the delivery of the amended statement of defence to them.
Order accordingly.