A B & OTHERS V LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL, THE NUGENT CARE SOCIETY, TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL CHILDREN’S HOME AND ORPHANAGE REGISTERED [1998] EWCA Civ 1000
FACTS:-
The Claimants were bringing claims for sexual and physical abuse, alleged to have been suffered by residents at a number of children’s homes in the North West of England. Proceedings were issued on the 31st January 1997 naming the Claimants as “A B and Others.” On the 30th July 1997 an application was made to strike out the claims as nullities on the basis that the claims had been issued in the names of non-existent Claimants. Mr Justice Forbes refused to strike out the claims, and said that the irregularity might be cured by amendment. The Claimants’ solicitor then applied to amend the claims. The practical effect of the amendments was to fix the date when the proceedings began for limitation purposes and perhaps for other purposes as 31st January 1997. Protective additional proceedings were issued on the 4th August 1997. The amendments were allowed by Mr Justice Forbes on the basis that Order 20 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules allowed such an amendment if there had been a genuine mistake, and was not misleading or such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intending to sue. Mr Justice Forbes held that there had been a genuine mistake.
HELD:-
Lord Justice May went over the history of the case. It was notorious that multi party actions could result in severe procedural and administrative difficulty. At present it was necessary for proceedings to be issued for each Claimant. A number of Claimants might be joined in a first set of proceedings. Thereafter, if additional Claimants were to be added to the group, then new proceedings would have to be issued for them. Those additional Claimants could not have the limitation benefit of the date of the first set of proceedings, nor would adding them to a register alone secure them any date for limitation purposes.
The Claimants’ solicitor had made a genuine mistake. The words “A B and others” had been used to preserve anonymity and there had been a telephone conversation between the parties’ solicitors and there had been no objection provided the names of the Claimants were made known. May LJ said that the Defendants were well aware of the identities of the Claimants. There was no doubt in the minds of the Defendants as to who the Claimants were.
The Defendants had submitted that although it was accepted that the Claimants’ solicitor intended to issue proceedings on behalf of a large number of Claimants, most (if not all) of whom had been identified one way or another to the Defendants’ solicitors in correspondence which preceded issue of proceedings, the precise composition of the members of the group was not know to the Defendants, nor had they the means of finding out, nor indeed in some instances, was it known to the Claimants’ solicitor.
May LJ said that the form of title was in no sense misleading. There was no reasonable doubt as to the composition of the group. Therefore the judgement of Mr Justice Forbes was unassailable. Nourse LJ agreed.
FACTS:-
The Claimants were bringing claims for sexual and physical abuse, alleged to have been suffered by residents at a number of children’s homes in the North West of England. Proceedings were issued on the 31st January 1997 naming the Claimants as “A B and Others.” On the 30th July 1997 an application was made to strike out the claims as nullities on the basis that the claims had been issued in the names of non-existent Claimants. Mr Justice Forbes refused to strike out the claims, and said that the irregularity might be cured by amendment. The Claimants’ solicitor then applied to amend the claims. The practical effect of the amendments was to fix the date when the proceedings began for limitation purposes and perhaps for other purposes as 31st January 1997. Protective additional proceedings were issued on the 4th August 1997. The amendments were allowed by Mr Justice Forbes on the basis that Order 20 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules allowed such an amendment if there had been a genuine mistake, and was not misleading or such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intending to sue. Mr Justice Forbes held that there had been a genuine mistake.
HELD:-
Lord Justice May went over the history of the case. It was notorious that multi party actions could result in severe procedural and administrative difficulty. At present it was necessary for proceedings to be issued for each Claimant. A number of Claimants might be joined in a first set of proceedings. Thereafter, if additional Claimants were to be added to the group, then new proceedings would have to be issued for them. Those additional Claimants could not have the limitation benefit of the date of the first set of proceedings, nor would adding them to a register alone secure them any date for limitation purposes.
The Claimants’ solicitor had made a genuine mistake. The words “A B and others” had been used to preserve anonymity and there had been a telephone conversation between the parties’ solicitors and there had been no objection provided the names of the Claimants were made known. May LJ said that the Defendants were well aware of the identities of the Claimants. There was no doubt in the minds of the Defendants as to who the Claimants were.
The Defendants had submitted that although it was accepted that the Claimants’ solicitor intended to issue proceedings on behalf of a large number of Claimants, most (if not all) of whom had been identified one way or another to the Defendants’ solicitors in correspondence which preceded issue of proceedings, the precise composition of the members of the group was not know to the Defendants, nor had they the means of finding out, nor indeed in some instances, was it known to the Claimants’ solicitor.
May LJ said that the form of title was in no sense misleading. There was no reasonable doubt as to the composition of the group. Therefore the judgement of Mr Justice Forbes was unassailable. Nourse LJ agreed.