Greenwood v Papademetri

The dispute in *Greenwood v Papademetri* concerned an application to join a new party to proceedings after the expiration of the relevant limitation period. The claimant sought to substitute Mr Jamiel Antoun as a defendant, alleging he was the owner of premises where a public nuisance had allegedly been created by building works. The primary issue was whether the court had the power to permit such a joinder or substitution, particularly given the operation of limitation periods.

The court was required to determine the scope of the court's power under section 65(2)(b) of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) to correct a mistake in the name of a party to proceedings, and whether this power extended to substituting multiple parties for a single party, or adding a party where the original party was correctly identified but the claimant wished to sue an additional or different party. A further issue was the interaction between section 65(2)(b) and the provisions of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW), specifically section 18A and Division 6, which govern extensions of time for personal injury actions.

The Court of Appeal held that section 65(2)(b) of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* was not intended to permit the substitution of a new party for an existing party where the claimant had simply sued the wrong party, or wished to add a party against whom they had a cause of action. Instead, it was designed to correct genuine mistakes in the naming of a party, such as misspellings or incorrect descriptions. The court found that the claimant's application to join Mr Antoun was not a correction of a mistake in the name of a party, but rather an attempt to add a new defendant after the limitation period had expired. Consequently, the court set aside the orders below and granted leave to the claimant to file a further amended statement of claim, excluding the allegation that Mr Antoun was the owner of the premises. The claimant was ordered to pay the opponent's costs of the application.