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 in no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person intending to sue. Application was made under RSC Ord 20 r 5(3) for leave to amend the name on the application. The four month period had by now expired.
Held: The amendment of the name of a party relates back to the start of the action even though it would be out of time otherwise if substituting a new party. It was proper to allow the amendment.
Citations:
Gazette 21-Jan-1998, Times 15-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2939
Statutes:
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 20 rule 5(3), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 29(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mitchell 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143338