The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rules 26.02(b) and 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add an individual as a defendant after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The claim arose from a letter allegedly authored by the proposed defendant accusing the plaintiffs of criminal conduct and demanding their resignation from a religious organization.
The plaintiffs argued they only discovered the individual’s potential liability after the limitation period when the corporate defendant denied responsibility for the conduct of the local council.
The court held that the evidentiary threshold for discoverability at the amendment stage is low and that the plaintiffs had provided a reasonable explanation showing a triable issue regarding due diligence.
The motion to add the proposed defendant was granted with leave for the added defendant to plead a limitations defence.
