Sandy Lane Hotel Ltd -v- Times Newspapers Ltd & ors [2009] IESC 75 (16 November 2009)

Sandy Lane Hotel Ltd -v- Times Newspapers Ltd & ors [2009] IESC 75 (16 November 2009)

The error in the plaintiff's name was not a clerical error but a substantive mistake arising from a failure to appreciate the significance of a corporate name change; therefore, correction under Order 63 Rule 1(15) was inappropriate and the High Court order was set aside.

Citation
[2009] IESC 75
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Sandy Lane Hotel Limited; Defendant/appellant: Times Newspapers Limited; Defendant/appellant: Zoe Brennan; Defendant/appellant: Wendy Leith
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Permitting Correction of Plaintiff's Name
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; relief sought by plaintiff refused
Legal Topics
Correction of Party Names, Clerical Error, Substitution of Parties, Statute of Limitations, Libel
Civil Procedure Defamation Correction of Party Names Clerical Error Substitution of Parties Statute of Limitations Libel

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

Sandy Lane Hotel Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Zoe Brennan

Defendant/appellant

Wendy Leith

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Permitting Correction of Plaintiff's Name

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the error in the plaintiff's name was a clerical error correctable under Order 63 Rule 1(15) of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the application should have been brought under Order 15 for substitution of parties
  3. 3 Whether the error was administrative or substantive

Ratio Decidendi

The error in the plaintiff's name was not a clerical error but a substantive mistake arising from a failure to appreciate the significance of a corporate name change; therefore, correction under Order 63 Rule 1(15) was inappropriate and the High Court order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; relief sought by plaintiff refused

Orders

  • High Court order granting correction of plaintiff's name set aside
  • Application under Order 63 Rule 1(15) refused