J. Mathers McHenry

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.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to amend his statement of claim nearly five years after commencing the action.

The proposed amendments sought to add a claim for damages relating to the value of the plaintiff’s investment advisor “book of business” and alleged entitlement to working notice to transition clients.

The court held that the proposed amendments were not tenable at law because they effectively sought double recovery for lost income and relied on a non‑existent entitlement to working notice.

In addition, the amendments constituted a new cause of action based on new material facts and were therefore statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted leave only for certain unopposed amendments and permitted limited further discovery.