https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97888 Where a writ omitted the suffix 'Limited' and described the defendant as a firm, the dominant issue was whether that constituted substitution of a new defendant or a correctible misnomer. Applying the reasonable recipient test to surrounding correspondence and dealings, the analysis found the description unambiguously pointed to the company; therefore the omission was a correctible misnomer. The legal principle applied is that if a reasonable recipient would understand the document to identify the corporate entity despite a naming error, amendment to the correct corporate name is permissible and does not add a new party for limitation purposes. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97888 Where a writ omitted the suffix 'Limited' and described the defendant as a firm, the dominant issue was whether that constituted substitution of a new defendant or a correctible misnomer. Applying the reasonable recipient test to surrounding correspondence and dealings, the analysis found the description unambiguously pointed to the company; therefore the omission was a correctible misnomer. The legal principle applied is that if a reasonable recipient would understand the document to identify the corporate entity despite a naming error, amendment to the correct corporate name is permissible and does not add a new party for limitation purposes. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 10 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97888