London Borough of Hounslow v Cumar

CPR Part 19.2(4) is not the exclusive route for replacing one party with another. Even where its condition that an interest or liability has passed is not satisfied, the court may add the new party under Part 19.2(2) and remove the existing party under Part 19.2(3). The question is whether those provisions permit the change and whether it is desirable to resolve the matters in dispute. This construction avoids unnecessary technicality and supports the prompt, efficient and cost-effective resolution of proceedings.

The local authority brought possession proceedings in the name of Hounslow Homes, its wholly owned managing company, although the authority owned the property and was the proper claimant. The defendant argued that the claim disclosed no cause of action and that the authority could not be substituted under CPR Part 19.2(4), because no interest or liability had passed from Hounslow Homes.

The county court judge held that the authority could instead be added under Part 19.2(2) and Hounslow Homes removed under Part 19.2(3). The authority appealed. The central issue was whether the court could use those provisions cumulatively to achieve a change of parties which could not be made under Part 19.2(4).

1. Appeal dismissed. The county court judge had power to add the London Borough of Hounslow under CPR Part 19.2(2) and order Hounslow Homes to cease to be a party under Part 19.2(3).
2. Part 19.2 should not be construed narrowly. The power to substitute in Part 19.2(4) is not confined to cases where an interest or liability has passed. Reading it as the only possible route would unduly restrict the court’s ability to avoid technicality and resolve disputes promptly, efficiently and cost-effectively.
3. The language of Part 19.2(4) is permissive. It does not preclude an application being considered under another provision. Parts 19.2(2) and (3) can achieve in two steps what Part 19.2(4) achieves in one step in the specified circumstances.
4. The proposed change was desirable because it would enable the real dispute to be resolved and avoid fresh litigation arising from a technical naming error. The judge therefore exercised his discretion correctly.
5. It was unnecessary to consider CPR Part 3.1(2)(m), discussed in Johnson v Secretary of State for Health and Anor [2006] EWHC 288 (Admin), because Parts 19.2(2) and (3) were sufficient.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal dismissed; the county court’s decision was upheld: [2012] EWCA Civ 1426.
• Brentford County Court — His Honour Judge Oppenheimer held that the proper claimant could be added under CPR Part 19.2(2) and the misnamed claimant removed under Part 19.2(3).