Missing word in company name did not defeat enforcement

Althea Higgins won permission to correct the name of the construction company she had sued for workplace injuries. On 6 March, the Court of Appeal allowed her appeal and authorised enforcement against Dujon Construction Company Ltd under its corrected name.

Higgins had obtained a default judgment but encountered difficulty when seeking enforcement. Her documents omitted “Company” from the defendant’s name. The Parish Court refused a later amendment, treating the relevant procedural rule as limited to applications before or at trial.

The appeal court agreed about that rule’s timing but found a separate power in section 190 of the Judicature (Parish Court) Act. The omission was a defect of form: the company’s identity had not been disputed, including when it earlier sought to set aside the judgment.

The court distinguished correcting a name from substituting a different legal entity. It granted the amendment so Higgins could proceed with enforcement. The decision therefore turns on the established identity of this defendant, not a general permission to replace parties after judgment.

The operative amendment and enforcement permissions are explicit. The final order’s reference to setting aside a judgment dated 22 November 2018 appears inconsistent with the narrative identifying that date as the default judgment; this report does not infer that the underlying liability judgment was extinguished. Later treatment not checked.