Smith Forensic Inc.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting the respondents leave to amend their statement of claim to add new defendants and claims for unjust enrichment and conversion after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master committed a palpable and overriding error.

The respondents failed to adduce any direct evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under section 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, that they knew of the matters underlying the proposed claims when the acts took place.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add six new corporate and individual defendants (the "Proposed Defendants") and to advance claims for tracing remedies, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

The Proposed Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the new claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, asserting that the Plaintiffs had actual knowledge or ought to have discovered the claims earlier.

The court found that the Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge until receiving a second forensic report and that their diligence in waiting for this report was reasonable, thereby raising triable issues of fact and credibility regarding discoverability.

The court also determined that granting the amendments would not cause actual, non-compensable prejudice to the Proposed Defendants.

Leave to amend was granted, with the Original Defendants permitted to plead limitations defences.