Practice and Procedure - O. 18, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Leave to amend the defence – Lack of material change - Amplification of earlier defence 

Facts: The defendant sought leave to amend its defence. The plaintiff submitted that the proposed amendment radically altered the nature of the defence and introduced new matters. The defendant argued that the said amendment of defence was necessary to resolve the issues between the parties as by the proposed amendment, the defendant wished to raise the plea of statute of limitations and furnish the list of the persons against whom the plaintiff should have made the claim. 
Held: Mr. Justice Brian J. McGovern granted leave to the defendant to amend its defence. The Court held that the amendments were necessary to ensure that all of the real controversies between the parties could be determined at the trial of the proceedings. The Court observed that there had been no delay in bringing the present application. The Court stated that no new material facts were introduced by the proposed amendment and it was merely an amplification of the earlier pleaded defence. 
DD Growth Premium Master Fund (in iquidation) v PNC Global Investment Servicing (Europe) Limited known as BNY Mellon Investment Servicing (International) Limited 
20/12/2016 No. 2014/5675 P [2016] IEHC 742