Onorato Della Santa t/o New Phoenix Restaurant v. Michael George Scohdoulis, Civ. Case 12-D-68, 21/8/68

Onorato Della Santa t/o New Phoenix Restaurant v. Michael George Scohdoulis, Civ. Case 12-D-68, 21/8/68

Plaintiff brought this action for the sale of his restaurant under his own name, adding the words “trading as New Phoenix Restaurant.” Defendant raised the preliminary point that this name is not registered under the Business Names (Registration) Ordinance, Cap. 213, and that plaintiff had filed no statement of particulars under that name. Section 15(1) of that Ordinance provides that where there has been such a default, the defaulter’s rights under any contract “made or entered into ….in relation to the business in respect of the carrying on of which particulars were required at any time while he is in default shall not be enforceable by action or other legal proceeding whether in the business name or otherwise.” The restaurant is registered as “New Phoenix Restaurant, Bar and Cafereria,” but described in the contract in question as “New Phoenix Restaurant.”

            Held: (1) Section 15(1) is not applicable here. Plaintiff is registered and not in default, and the transaction Plaintiff is registered and not in default, and the transaction is clearly concerned with the firm whose registered name closely

Resembles the name appearing in the title to the suit. (2) The reference to the firm name in the title to the suit is merely a misdescription, which can be amended at any time, with leave by the Court, under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. [Citing Chitaley  & Rao, Vol. I 2^nd ed., p. 1127] Leave to amend granted.