JUDGMENT

Justice Warren:

[1] This is an appeal (brought with the permission of the Master) from the judgment of Master Bowles dated 3 September 2008 ("the Judgment"), dismissing the application of the Appellant, Harland & Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd ("the Trustee"), to amend certain provisions of the Particulars of Claim ("the PoC"). The Master allowed certain uncontroversial amendments to be made, but refused to allow the key amendments, which can be found at paras 21-25, 28, 29(ii) and 30(ii) of the draft amended PoC on the grounds that they introduced a new cause of action not arising out of the same or substantially the same facts and hence that the Court had no jurisdiction to allow them. The question on appeal is this: Was the Master correct to hold that he had no jurisdiction to allow the amendments which he refused?

[2] The claim is brought by the Trustee as trustee of the Harland and Wolff Pension Scheme ("the Scheme") against the Respondent, Aon Consulting Financial Services Ltd ("Aon"), who acted as pension advisers to the Scheme. It is a claim for damages for professional negligence in implementing what is known in pensions jargon as "equalisation", ie the replacement of un