The plaintiff moved to add its founder back into the action as a plaintiff nunc pro tunc, arguing misnomer.
The founder had originally commenced the action in his own name but subsequently obtained an ex parte order substituting the corporate plaintiff for himself.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the deliberate decision to substitute the parties meant the founder was not always the intended plaintiff, and thus the test for misnomer was not met.
However, the court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to add the founder as a plaintiff without prejudice to any limitation period defence, as agreed by the defendants.
