(a) where an application is made late in the day, is inadequately explained, necessitates the vacation or adjournment of the dates set down for trial, and raises new claims not previously agitated apparently because of a deliberate tactical decision not to do so, the party making the application bears a heavy burden to show why leave should be granted;
(b) there is an irreparable element of unfair prejudice in unnecessarily delaying proceedings;
(c) the time of the court is a publicly funded resource and inefficiencies in the use of that resource, arising from the vacation or adjournment of trials, are to be taken into account as is the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system;
(d) undue delay in the resolution of civil disputes can undermine confidence in the rule of law. To that extent its avoidance, based upon a proper regard for the interests of the parties, transcends those interests. Another factor which relates to the interests of the parties but transcends them is the waste of public resources and the inefficiency occasioned by the need to revisit interlocutory processes, vacate trial dates, or adjourn trials either because of non-compliance with court timetables or, as in this case, because of a late and deliberate tactical change by one party in the direction of its conduct of the litigation;
(e) also to be considered is the potential for loss of public confidence in the legal system which arises where a court is seen to accede to application made without adequate explanation or justification, whether they be for adjournment, for amendments giving rise to adjournment, or for vacation of fixed trial dates resulting in the resetting of interlocutory processes;
(f) the requirement to make amendments for the purposes of deciding "the real issues in the proceeding" does not impose some unqualified duty to permit the late addition of any new claim; the real issues in the proceeding are determined by reference to the limited way in which the party deliberately chooses to frame its original claim;
(g) the purposes of rules requiring the minimisation of the delay and expense of proceedings, are plainly intended to guide the exercise of discretion to allow amendments;
(h) the objectives of case management are now expressly stated in court rules and it cannot be overlooked that such rules are likely to have been written with the decision in JL Holdings in mind;
(i) speed and efficiency, in the sense of minimum delay and expense, are seen as essential to a just resolution of proceedings. This should not detract from a proper opportunity being given to the parties to plead their case, but it suggests that limits may be placed upon repleading, when delay and cost are taken into account;
(j) the view that justice cannot always be measured in money and that a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes upon litigants, is also now generally accepted;
(k) personal litigants are likely to feel the strain of litigation more than business corporations or commercial persons;
(l) much may depend upon the point the litigation has reached relative to a trial when the application to amend is made. There may be cases where it may properly be concluded that a party has had sufficient opportunity to plead their case and that it is too late for a further amendment, having regard to the other party and other litigants awaiting trial dates. Rules requiring the minimisation of the delay and expense of proceedings make it plain that the extent and the effect of delay and costs are to be regarded as important considerations in the exercise of the court's discretion;
(m) generally speaking, where a discretion is sought to be exercised in favour of one party, and to the disadvantage of another, an explanation will be called for;
(n) not only will the party applying need to show that their application is brought in good faith, but they will also need to bring the circumstances giving rise to the amendment to the court's attention, so that they may be weighed against the effects of any delay and the objectives of the Rules; and
(o) a party has the right to bring proceedings. Parties have choices as to what claims are to be made and how they are to be framed. But limits will be placed upon their ability to effect changes to their pleadings, particularly if litigation is advanced. That is why, in seeking the just resolution of the dispute, reference is made to parties having a sufficient opportunity to identify the issues they seek to agitate;