Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the 1954 Act was silent as to the addition or substitution of parties to proceedings. The assumption was that such amendments were to be allowed because the Act did not proscribe them. The extension of CPR 17.4 to limitation periods in some other statutes is within the powers of the rules committee.
Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson
[2004] EWCA (Civ) 912, Times 28-Jul-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 3264
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, Civil Procedure Rules 29(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPiper v Muggleton CA 1956
For proceedings applying for a new tenancy under the Act, it is necessary that at every stage of those proceedings the person joined as ‘the landlord’ should in fact answer that description according to the statutory definition, and that if there is . .
CitedKetteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
CitedLiff v Peasley CA 1980
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. . .
CitedMitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd CA 1967
The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very . .
CitedDavies v Elsby Brothers Ltd CA 1961
The writ was issued within the limitation period for the claim against ‘Elsby Brothers (a firm)’. In fact, the firm’s business had been taken over by Elsby Brothers Ltd before the proceedings had been issued. By the time the plaintiff applied for . .
CitedKetteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
CitedSignet Group Plc v Hammerson UK Properties Plc CA 9-Dec-1997
An application was made for a new tenancy within the four month period prescribed by section 29(3) of the LTA. The applicants named in error in the application were ‘Signet Group plc’ and not ‘Ernest Jones Ltd’. Hammerson had not been misled and was . .
CitedThe Sardinia Sulcis CA 1991
The power to change a party after the expiry of a limitation period can be exercised where a party has been wrongly identified, but ‘it was possible to identify the intending claimant or intended defendant by reference to a description which was . .
CitedThe Jay Bola 1992
A writ was issued against defendants ‘O’ who had been owners of the Jay Bola, just prior to the expiry of the one year time bar under the Hague Rules. The judge laid emphasis on the fact that Article 6 III r.6 discharged from all liability unless . .
CitedHorne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong . .

Cited by:
CitedRhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.198712