The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add a railway company as a defendant and to amend their statement of claim following a train–motor vehicle collision.
The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in identifying it earlier.
The court held that the discoverability principle applied because the plaintiffs reasonably believed the train operator was responsible for the crossing until examinations for discovery revealed that another entity controlled the tracks and signals.
The court found the plaintiffs had acted with reasonable diligence and that the proposed defendant suffered no actual prejudice given its early knowledge of the accident.
The motion to add the party and amend the claim was granted, with leave to the added defendant to plead a limitation defence.
