S P Manweb Plc v Bechtel Water Technology Ltd & Ors

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 19.5, a party may be substituted after expiry of limitation where the party named in the claim form was named through a genuine mistake and the intended party would have been named had the mistake not occurred. The rule addresses a mistake as to the party’s name, rather than merely an error of nomenclature.

The requirement that the mistake cause no reasonable doubt as to the intended party is not imported into rule 19.5, although the circumstances may be relevant to the court’s discretion. The alternatives in rule 19.5(3)(a) and (b) are disjunctive. Relief may properly be granted where refusal would statute-bar an otherwise viable claim and confer an unmeritorious windfall, provided the amendment does not reformulate the claim and the overall justice of the case favours substitution.

Two consolidated Technology and Construction Court actions arose from flooding at Bromborough Waste Water Treatment Works on 3 July 2001. S P Manweb plc sought to substitute United Utilities Water plc for United Utilities plc and Amec Civil Engineering Ltd for Amec plc in its negligence claim. United Utilities plc sought corresponding substitutions in its indemnity or contribution action against Enpure Ltd and Amec plc.

The applications were made after the limitation period under Limitation Act 1980. The evidence showed that the lawyers and clients had intended to sue the actual owner and occupier of the works and the actual contracting companies, but had mistakenly identified the corporate entities. The central issues were whether the mistakes fell within CPR 17.4 or 19.5, whether the rule required absence of reasonable doubt as to identity, whether the statutory alternatives were cumulative, and whether discretion should nevertheless be exercised against amendment.

1. Applications allowed. The court permitted substitution of United Utilities Water plc and Amec Civil Engineering Ltd for United Utilities plc and Amec plc in both actions.
2. The applications fell within CPR 19.5 rather than CPR 17.4(3). The relevant mistakes were genuine mistakes as to the names of the parties intended to be sued, applying the generous approach derived from The Sardinia Sulcis [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 201. The evidence established an intention to sue the actual owner and occupier of the works and the actual contractors, although the wrong corporate names were used.
3. Following Adelson v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 701 and Gregson v Channel Four Television Corp [2000] CP Rep 60, CPR 17.4 and 19.5 must be read together. However, the requirement in CPR 17.4(3) that the mistake cause no reasonable doubt as to identity is not imported into CPR 19.5. If such a requirement were relevant, it would be assessed objectively. CPR 19.5(3)(a) and (b) are alternative, not cumulative, conditions.
4. Alternatively, both applications satisfied CPR 19.5(3)(b), since the claims could not properly be carried on against the originally named parties unless the correct companies were substituted.
5. The discretion should be exercised in favour of amendment. The claims had been issued within the relevant limitation period; the mistakes were genuine, though not necessarily blame-free; correcting the claimant’s or defendant’s name did not reformulate the pleaded claims; and refusal would cause substantial prejudice or bar viable claims, while conferring an unmeritorious windfall on Enpure. The applications were therefore allowed, with costs and further directions reserved.