In the case of Rastorguev v Granatex dated May 12, 2023, the Court in Milton had heard a motion presented by the plaintiffs, namely Ilya Rastorguev, Andrey Rastorguev, and Margarita Tirskikh, seeking to amend their Statement of Claim. The opposing parties were the defendants, Granatex Construction Corp., Gro Holding Corporation, Mariusz Granat, and Nicol Granat. The plaintiffs' initial claim had included specific performance of two share purchase agreements and equitable damages worth $1,500,000.00. The proposed amendments had been extensive and had introduced various claims for general damages. On November 16, 2021, the defendants had previously sought specific performance of the share purchase agreements, and Justice Chozik had granted their motion on November 22, 2021. In her endorsement, Justice Chozik had emphasized that both parties had agreed to specific performance and prolonging the litigation had constituted an abuse of the court's process. This decision had led to substantial indemnity costs against the Plaintiffs. The Court had granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim only if no uncompensable prejudice would arise. The Court had found that the proposed amendments had contradicted Justice Mills' previous order, which had defined the permissible claims not covered by the executed agreements. The Plaintiffs had intended to introduce new claims, including general damages unrelated to the share purchase agreement delay. The Court had concluded that these amendments had not been permissible and had dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court had called for written submissions on costs, with a specific timeline for each party to file their submissions.