Pearlman (Veneers) S.A. (Pty.) Ltd v Bernhard Bartels
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1123-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 23 November 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1123-1
Lord Justice Denning and
Lord Justice Hodson.
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
MR GERALD GARDINER, Q.C. and MR NEIL LAWSON (instructed by Messrs Buckeridge & Braune) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
MR MAURICE LYELL, Q.C. (instructed by Mr Sidney Pearlman) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
LORD JUSTICE DENNING. We need not trouble you, Mr Lyell.
Messrs Pearlman (Veneers) S.A. (Pty) Limited entered into contracts in writing with a concern which described itself on its notepaper as Bernhard Bartels of Langenberg inGermany. The contracts were made in 1950. Afterwards the Pearlman Company complained that Bernhard Bartels had not fulfilled their contract and they brought an action for damages in the English Courts. It was tried for four days in June, 1952, before Mr Justice Sellers, and in the result the Judge ordered Judgment to be entered for the Plaintiffs for £47,353. 2s. 6d. and costs.
In due course the Plaintiff Company, the Pearlman Company, sought to enforce that Judgment in the German Courts. In answer to that application in the German Courts Bernhard Bartels said that the Judgment was invalid and unenforceable upon the ground that the true name of the Defendant was Josef Bartels and that Bernhard Bartels was only the name in which he trades and that there was no such person as Bernhard Bartels. He said that the Judgment was directed against a supposed natural person who did not exist.
That plea sounds very ill in the mouth of the Defendant, who instructed solicitors in this country in the name of Bernhard Bartels, made a contract in the name of Bernhard Bartels, entered appearance and fought the whole action in this country in the name of Bernhard Bartels and now, when it is a matter of enforcing the Judgment in Germany, he says there is no such person as Bernhard Bartels but only Josef Bartels.
In that situation, in order to overcome this very technical point, the Plaintiff Company apply to the English Courts and say "Please amend the name of the Defendant to the name which he now says it is, change it to Josef Bartels trading as Bernhard Bartels". The Master and the Judge have made the necessary amendment. An appeal comes to this Court in which it is said that these Courts have no jurisdiction to amend a Judgment once it has been entered. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in MacCarthy v. Agard, 1933, 2 King's Bench, page 417. The distinction between that case and the present was drawn by MrJustice Slade in a Judgment with which I fully agree. In MacCarthy v. Agard the Plaintiff did not seek only to amend the name or the description of the Defendant. He sought to alter the very Judgment itself, which was in a special form applicable to a married woman. He sought to get rid of the operative and substantive part of the Judgment. This Court by a majority held that that could only be done by way of appeal, by leave to appeal being granted and an appeal made accordingly. Nevertheless, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Arab-Malaysia Finance Bhd v Malacca Development Corporation Sdn Bhd and Others
- EC Controlled Demolitionsdn Bhd and Others; Kordial Kor d/o Kundang Singh
-
Thynne v Thynne
...in these nor words: "I should he sorry to think that the inherent power of the court is to be in any way limited by rules"! 25 In Pearlman v. Bartels. 1954 I Weekly Law Reports, page 1457, the Court of Appeal, in approving the order of Mr, Justice Slade, went further, The name of the defend......
- Mallisamy a/l Periasamy v Pentadbir Tanah Melaka Tengah