Lucy v W T Henleys Telegraph Works Co Ltd (ICI Ltd, third party): 1970

References: [1970] 1 QB 393
Coram: Megaw LJ
Ratio: Megaw LJ discussed the application of O 15 r 1(4): ‘Paragraph (2) of that rule provides that a court may allow a party to amend the writ ‘after any period of limitation current at the date of the issue of the writ has expired’ but this is expressly confined to the cases mentioned in paras (3), (4) and (5) of the rule. Paragraph (3) provides that an amendment to correct the name of a party may be allowed under para (2) notwithstanding that it is alleged that the effect of the amendment is to substitute a new party; but this power is explicitly confined to an amendment to correct the name where there is a genuine mistake which it is sought to correct. The addition of a new and different party is not correcting the name of a party; it is not a matter of mistake. The inference is inevitable that an amendment to add a completely new and different defendant is not permissible where a relevant period of limitation affecting the proposed defendant has expired.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC ([2010] WLR (D) 130, WLRD, Bailii, [2010] UKSC 22, SC, SC Summ, Bailii Summary, [2010] PNLR 30, [2010] WTLR 1223, [2010] 2 WLR 1227, [2011] AC 240)
    The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 June 2020
Ref: 415955