The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute two identified individuals carrying on business as a security automation service in place of a fictitiously named defendant, “John Doe.” The motion arose from water damage allegedly caused by a defective sprinkler head following inspection of the sprinkler system by contractors retained by a security company.
The proposed defendants argued that the amendment would improperly add parties after expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court held the amendment constituted correction of a misnomer because the statement of claim clearly described the technicians involved in the inspection and the “litigation finger” was directed at them from the outset.
As no non‑compensable prejudice was shown and the action remained at an early stage, leave to amend was granted.
