A B & Ors v Liverpool City Council & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1000 (15 June 1998)

A B & Ors v Liverpool City Council & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1000 (15 June 1998)

The Court of Appeal held that the use of 'A B and Others' as a pseudonym for the plaintiffs was a genuine mistake, not misleading, and did not cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the parties intending to sue. The defendants were aware of the group intending to sue, and the requirements of Ord.20, r.5(3) were satisfied. The High Court's decision to allow the amendment was correct and unassailable.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 1000
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: A B & Others; Defendant/applicant: Liverpool City Council; Defendant/applicant: The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services [Liverpool]); Defendant/applicant: Trustees of the National Children's Home and Orphanage Registered
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Group Litigation, Correction of Party Names
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Group Litigation Correction of Party Names

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A B & Others

Plaintiffs/respondents

Liverpool City Council

Defendant/applicant

The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services [Liverpool])

Defendant/applicant

Trustees of the National Children's Home and Orphanage Registered

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment to writs to substitute named plaintiffs for pseudonym 'A B and Others' is permissible after expiry of limitation period under Ord.20, r.5(3)
  2. 2 Whether the mistake in naming plaintiffs was misleading or caused reasonable doubt as to the identity of the parties intending to sue

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the use of 'A B and Others' as a pseudonym for the plaintiffs was a genuine mistake, not misleading, and did not cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the parties intending to sue. The defendants were aware of the group intending to sue, and the requirements of Ord.20, r.5(3) were satisfied. The High Court's decision to allow the amendment was correct and unassailable.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications dismissed