Identification

Cressey v E Timm & Son Ltd and another CA TLR 25 July

The claimant, although employed by the second defendant, received payslips in the name of an associate company, E Timm & Son Ltd, to whom a letter of claim was sent within four months of the claimant being injured in an accident at work. Timm’s insurers, in response to the letter of claim, identified E Timm & Son Holdings Ltd as their insured and the claimant’s solicitors took that firm to be their client’s employer. After service of the proceedings but after the expiration of the limitation period it transpired that the claimant was in fact employed by the second defendant. Where the identity of the employer is uncertain or wrongly stated to the employee, as in the present case, the date of knowledge would be postponed for as long as it reasonably took to make and complete appropriate inquiries. It was sufficient that the claimant had been deprived of the knowledge he needed by being misinformed. ‘Identity’ is a difficult concept because a person’s identity could be established in different ways. In the context of litigation for limitation purposes, the identity of a defendant appeared to look to something specific enough to enable a person to be identified for the purposes of a claim form, and that was ultimately looking for a name. One could not sue ‘the driver of the other car’ or even ‘my employer’; a name had to be provided. Moreover, artificial persons, such as companies, could hardly ever be described, save by their name.