The court considered the scope of the court’s power to permit an amendment as regards parties outside a limitation period. The amendment in this instance was to substitute one claimant in place of another, namely the liquidator of a company instead of the company itself.
Held: The court said of the new rule that: ‘The text is not quite the same as that of the section, but the rule must be construed as being no wider than is permitted by the section. The effect, on the facts of this case, is that paragraph (3)(b) has to be satisfied, it being shown ‘that the claim cannot properly be carried on by or against the original party’ without the substitution.’
Judges:
Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ, Sullivan LJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 1366, [2010] PNLR 17, [2010] BPIR 437, [2010] Bus LR 857
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Goldfarb (Liquidator of Eurocruit Europe Ltd) v Poppleton ChD 21-Jun-2007
The court was asked whether proceedings under section 212 brought by the liquidator against a former director of the company were barred by limitation, having been brought just within 6 years after the resolution for creditors’ voluntary . .
Cited by:
Cited – Irwin and Another v Lynch and Another CA 6-Oct-2010
The court considered an appeal against an order allowing an amendment outside the limitation period which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Limitation
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392512