John O’Driscoll v Vincent Raymond Clayton (Junior)

A deed poll evidencing a change of surname is evidential; it is not the instrument that itself effects the change. A change occurs when the person adopts the new name and uses it, and it may be proved by other evidence. An unenrolled deed poll remains valid.

Under CPR 3.1(7), an interlocutory order may be varied where circumstances have materially changed or the facts underlying it were misstated. Where the evidential purpose of a document has already been achieved by other reliable evidence, and requiring production would serve no useful purpose, the court may delete the requirement.

The claimant sought declaratory and other relief concerning a share-transfer agreement and had obtained interim freezing relief. By an order dated 18 April 2024, he was required to serve certified copies of identity documents and the deed poll by which he had changed his surname, with discharge of the injunction as the sanction for non-compliance.

The claimant supplied the identity documents but could not find the deed poll. He applied either for more time or for deletion of that requirement. The central issues were whether the change of name was sufficiently established without the original deed poll and whether the interlocutory order should be varied.

1. Application granted. Paragraph 11 of the order dated 18 April 2024 was varied by deleting all reference to service of a certified copy of the deed poll.
2. The court accepted the unchallenged affidavit evidence. Where witnesses are not cross-examined, the court may weigh their evidence, but should not disbelieve it unless it is manifestly incredible in the circumstances: Long v Farrer & Co [2004] BPIR 1218, applied in Coyne v DRC Distribution Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 488. The claimant’s evidence was coherent and credible.
3. A deed poll is merely evidence of a change of name. The change results from the person’s decision to adopt and use the new name and invite others to use it. A deed poll is not the only available evidence. An unenrolled deed poll remains legally valid, and enrolment adds publicity rather than legal quality. The court relied on D v B [1979] Fam 38.
4. The order requiring the deed poll was interlocutory. Under CPR 3.1(7), the court could vary it because circumstances had changed: searches had failed, the solicitor confirmed preparing the deed, and HM Passport Office confirmed that the deed had been produced when the claimant’s passport was changed.
5. The purpose of requiring the deed poll was to establish the claimant’s change of name. That purpose had been achieved by the passport, driving licence, bank statement, evidence from the solicitor and confirmation from HM Passport Office. The deed poll was irrelevant to any future security-for-costs application and would not materially affect the original freezing-injunction decision. There was therefore every good reason to remove the requirement.
6. The observations concerning changes of forenames, children’s names and registration of births, marriages and deaths were not necessary to the decision.

This was a first-instance application concerning an interlocutory order made in the same proceedings.

• 18 March 2024: the claimant applied without notice for interim injunctive relief.
• 20 March 2024: interim freezing and related relief was granted.
• 18 April 2024: HHJ Berkley continued the relief and imposed the documentary-compliance requirement in paragraph 11.
• 13 May 2024: the High Court varied paragraph 11 by deleting the requirement to serve a certified copy of the deed poll.