The Plaintiffs sought to add a new corporate Defendant to their Action pursuant to Rule 3.74. Master Schlosser had denied the addition on the ground that insufficient evidence was advanced in support of amendment. On Appeal before Justice Lema, additional evidence was offered to justify the amendment.

The Court noted that while the evidentiary threshold respecting non-trivial amendment of pleadings is low, some evidence is necessary. However, Justice Lema was unable to ascertain any evidence that connected the proposed Defendant with the harm pleaded in the Statement of Claim, including by reference to the newly advanced evidence, which at most established the proposed Defendant’s involvement in related, but as yet un-pleaded, activities. The Appeal was dismissed.