Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation

A genuine mistake in a party’s name may be corrected after expiry of the limitation period where it causes no reasonable doubt about the intended party’s identity. This is a misnomer under rule 17.4(3), rather than the substitution of a new party under rule 19.5, even where the mistaken name belongs to an existing person.

A claim form bearing such a misnomer may constitute valid personal service on the intended company when delivered to its senior employee and nobody is misled. The overriding objective informs both the interpretation and application of these procedural rules.

The claimant issued a libel claim shortly before expiry of the applicable limitation period. The claim form mistakenly named a dormant subsidiary, Channel Four Television Company Limited, instead of the intended broadcaster and website publisher, Channel Four Television Corporation. The form was personally delivered at their shared registered office to a senior employee of the Corporation on the final permitted day for service.

Morland J permitted correction of the name under rule 17.4(3) and held that the Corporation had already been served. The Corporation appealed, contending that rule 19.5 required substitution of a new defendant and that further service, an extension of time and a wider discretionary assessment were necessary. The central issues were whether the error was a misnomer or a mistake requiring substitution, and whether service on the Corporation was effective.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. May LJ delivered the leading judgment. Peter Gibson LJ agreed and gave further reasons. The claim form had been validly served on Channel Four Television Corporation, and Morland J had correctly permitted amendment of its name under rule 17.4(3).

2. Personal delivery to the Corporation’s senior business executive constituted service on a company under rule 6.4(4). The list of persons holding a senior position in the Part 6 Practice Direction was not exclusive. The shared registered office and possible authority to receive documents for the dormant subsidiary did not alter the fact that the form was personally delivered to a senior employee of the intended Corporation. Nobody was misled by the erroneous name.

3. Rule 17.4(3) applies where there is a genuine mistake as to a party’s name which causes no reasonable doubt about the party’s identity. Rule 19.5 addresses the more fundamental case in which one party has been named in mistake for another and a change of parties is therefore required. The fact that the mistaken name happens to belong to an existing person does not necessarily turn a misnomer into a substitution. On the facts, the correct and intended defendant had always been named in substance, so no new party had to be substituted.

4. The new Civil Procedure Rules were to be interpreted as a procedural code in accordance with their overriding objective. Authorities decided under the former Rules of the Supreme Court would not generally determine the meaning or application of the new rules. The conditions of rule 17.4(3) were conceded, and the judge’s exercise of discretion caused no injustice or loss of an accrued limitation defence.

5. May LJ added that commencing proceedings near the end of a statutory limitation period is not, without more, an abuse or the warehousing of a claim. Delay may nevertheless affect a later discretionary application to add or substitute a party. If substitution is allowed, directions for service on the new party are not necessarily governed rigidly by rule 7.6(3), because the person could not have been served as a party before the substitution order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Corporation’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. The correction under rule 17.4(3) and the finding of valid service were upheld: [2000] EWCA Civ 214.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Morland J permitted the claimant to correct the defendant’s name and held that the claim form had already been served on the Corporation. No citation is stated in the judgment.