The term ‘past posting’ refers to late betting once either a race has begun or (as the image suggests) in Roulette when the dealer announces the there be ‘no more bets’.
A player cannot commence with a bet after a certain point when they will be in receipt of more information than what other players have previously had when they made their bets.
Can the same be said for any application made? Can you amend an application ‘past posting’? The short answer is yes, but it depends on the circumstance.
When is an application deemed to have been made?
Certain applications needs to be made by a certain time. For example, if an Order was made without a hearing then either party has leave to vary or set it aside but in accordance with CPR 3.3(6) that application has to be made no more than seven days after service unless the Order specifies a period of time.
One of the key points a litigator needs to know is when an application has been deemed to have been made. CPR 23.5 confirms that the application is deemed to have been made once it has been received with the Court. This means the Court staff date stamp it, even if the application is not processed or considered by a Judge until much later.
What happens then if, after that time, the applicant realises that they need to tweak the application?
“NO MORE BETS….well, ok maybe”
Master Matthews had to consider whether an applicant could amend an application before it was heard in the case of Agents Mutual Limited-v- Moginnie James Ltd [2016] EWHC 3384 (Ch). The applicant had made an application for summary Judgment and wished to amend its application to add further grounds.
In his short Judgment, Master Matthews explained that the usual provisions for amendments could not apply to an applications when they are relevant for pleadings only and CPR 24 did not have any grounds for the application to be amended prior to being heard.
Instead the Judge considered that CPR 3.1(2)M did allow for such an amendment. The particular wording of this provision is:-
Except where these Rules provide otherwise, the court may…….take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective, including hearing an Early Neutral Evaluation with the aim of helping the parties settle the case
The rule is so broad that it could be moulded to justify any amendments.
So I can sneak a late bet in? Don’t start counting your winnings just yet
Master Matthew, in Agents, did not allow the amendment. Due to how late the amendment was being sought meant that it would likely lead to an adjournment of the application as the respondent would need to adduce further evidence to deal with the point raised in the amendments.
A more recent example, Cavadore Ltd & Anor v Jawa & Anor [2021] EWHC 3382 (Ch), reiterates that just because the Court can allow amendments to an application does not mean they will be accepted.
Deputy Master Francis also refused to allow the amendments to an application because:-
- The amendment was made too late and the applicant should have sought to amend the moment they were aware of the circumstances that prompted the amendment.
- The original application was deemed to be ‘misleading and the information provided sparse and inadequate‘
- The proposed amendments significantly altered the nature and substance of the application
The Judge was of the view that the proposed amendments did not accord with the overriding objective. It was the applicant’s attempt to salvage an application and therefore the amendments were not allowed
Can amendments to applications actually succeed in practice?
I have had success in practice, albeit they tended to be mere variations in comparison with the above.
I was instructed on one occasion to facilitate an application for disclosure against a Defendant (a motor insurer) who would not provide the name of a driver (or could not).
The instructing Solicitors sought an Order for disclosure of the name of the driver and if not, permission to issue proceedings without having to name the driver of the Defendant vehicle.
There were two issues with this. Firstly, CPR 31.16 is for the disclosure (and inspection of copy of document) so one cannot simply request a name of an individual. Secondly, the Supreme Court decision of Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6 makes it clear that a Claimant must identify the driver to demonstrate that they have a statutory right to bring the proceedings against the insurer.
The application needed amending. I recommended that those instructing should write to the Court and the Defendant to amend the application for the remedy to be the disclosure of the motor insurance policy (so the insurer driver could be identified and an investigation into who was driving on the material day could be started).
This was sufficiently close to what the Claimant initially sought that the Judge allowed it and the Defendant was put on notice a week before the hearing. Further the Judge recognised that the Claimant could not possibly issue proceedings without the identity of the drive and the information sought would help commence that investigation.
The key to any amendment to an application is to make it promptly; ensure it is not undermining the principle of the original application and justify why the amendment furthers the overriding objective.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.