Two defendants moved for leave to amend their statements of defence to add limitations defences in an action alleging uncredited credit card transaction proceeds.
The plaintiff argued that leave under Rule 48.04 was required after the matter was set down for trial and that the limitations defences were themselves barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court held that, even if Rule 48.04 leave were necessary, it should be granted, and rejected the argument that a limitations defence constitutes a statutory claim subject to the same limitation period.
Applying Rule 26.01, the court found no non-compensable prejudice and granted leave to amend.
Costs were awarded to the successful moving defendants on a reduced partial indemnity basis.
