clr/1988/1988_1_1.pdf

(1988)Business names—The partnershipand Business Names Law, Cap. 116, — Scope of registration and the statutory provisions relating to business names have no bearing on the identity of the physical person tradingunder abusinessname — Thebusiness name hasno separate entity at Law — 0.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules — 5 Contains rules of procedure —It does not affect the aforesaid position. The appellant sought to set aside the Registration of a foreign judgment effected under Cap. 10*on the ground that the judgment debtor isdescribed as «NicosAntoniou (trading as ERAFashions)», 10 whereas execution issought against NicosAntoniou, i.e. the person trading under the said name. The application was dismissed. Hence this appeal. Held, dismissingthe appeal:

(1)The scope of the registration and the statutory provisions 15 relating to the control of business names have no bearing on the identityofthephysicalpersontradingundersuch businessname.On thecontrary,theregistration createscertainobligations:disclosureof the identity of the physical person carrying on business under such business name isone of the objects ofthe control byregistration. 20

(2)Order7,Rules5and 11,oftheCivilProcedureRules,areRules ofProcedure. They do not affect the said position. Appeal dismissed withcosts. Appeal. Appeal byapplicant against thejudgment ofthe DistrictCourt of 2 5 Nicosia (Artemides, Ag. P.D.C.) dated the 23rd September, 1985 (Appl. No. 19/84) whereby his application to set aside the registration of a judgment issued by the Mayer's and City of London Court under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Law, Cap. 10 was dismissed. 30 L. derides, for the appellant. Chr. Chrysanthou, for the respondent TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The Judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Stylianides. STYLIANIDES J.: This appeal is directed against the 3 5 decision of a President of the District Court of Nicosia whereby the application of the appellant to set aside the registration of a *The ForeignJudgments (ReciprocalEnforcement)Law. Cap. 10. 2 1C.L.R. In reAntoniou Styllanides J. Judgment issuedbytheMayor'sand CityofLondon Court under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Law, Cap. 10, was dismissed. The single issue raised and argued iswhether «Nicos Antoniou 5 tradingasERAFashions»whichisthedescription ofthe defendant judgment debtor in the said Judgment is the same as «Nicos Antoniou», the person against whom execution issought in this countryMissAnna Fashions Limited commenced an action (Case No. 10 8151739) in the High Court of Justice in England against «Nicos Antoniou (trading as ERA Fashions)». This action was duly transferred totheMayor'sand CityofLondon Court.On4thMay, 1984, Judgment was issued by the last named Court adjudging that the plaintiffs in the Case No. 8151739 recover against the 15 above-named defendant the sum of £5,334.- plus interest £1,800.- plus costs taxed at £1,590.58, total sum £8,724.58 Sterling.TheJudgment remained wholly unsatisfied and was not capable of enforcement byexecution in England. The plaintiffs by Application No. 19/84 applied under the 20 Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Law, Cap. 10, for the registration of itinthe DistrictCourt of Nicosia. On 1st June, 1984, an order for registration was made by the District Court of Nicosia for the enforcement of the Judgment against NicosAntoniou of Aristotelousstreet, No. 5, Saint Pavlos 25 quarter. • Thereafter, Nicos Antoniou, the present appellant, applied to the District Court in the same Application 19/84 to set aside the ordjr given on 1stJune, 1984.Anumber of grounds wasset out in the accompanied affidavit, but at the hearing stage all of them 30 were withdrawn except one, namely, that the Judgment was obtained againstadifferent defendant thantheonespecified inthe application for registration. Mr.Clerides in hisableaddresssubmitted for the appellant that the provisions of section 50(b) of the Partnership and Business 35 Names Law, Cap. 116, which is a replica of section 22 of the Registration of "Business Names 1916 (English Act which was repealed by the Companies Act 1981), creates a different legal 3 Styllanides J . Inre Antoniou

(1988)entity and that such registration differentiates between a physical person and the person trading under such registered business name. He, further, contended that order 7, rule 11,of the Civil Procedure Ruleswhich correspondstotheOldEnglishOrder48a, rule 11 makes a differentiation between the physical person and the person trading under a business name, and thatinviewof the above «Nicos Antoniou trading as ERA Fashions» is a different person from Nicos Antoniou. 5 «Business name» means the name or style under which any business iscarriedon. 10 Inthepresentcase«ERAFashions»isabusinessnameortrading name underwhichNicosAntoniou,theappellant, wascarryingon hisbusinessatthe material time.Thescope oftheregistration and the statutory provisions relating to the control of business names have no bearing on the identity of the physical person trading 15 under such business name. On the contrary, the registration creates certain obligations; disclosure of the identity of the physical person carrying on businessundersuchbusinessname is one of the objects of the control by registration. Order7oftheCivilProcedureRulesprovidesforactionsbyand 20 againstfirmsandpersonscarryingonbusinessinnamesotherthan their own. Rule 11,which is identical to rule 11 of Order 48a of the Old English Rules, provides that any person carrying on business in Cyprus in a name or style otherthan hisown name may be sued 25 in such name orstyle as ifitwerea firm name.Theruleapplies to a single individual residing and trading within the jurisdiction in a name other than hisname, whether itpurportstobethename ofa firm or not. Aperson sued, by histrading name may be ordered to disclosehisrealname and privateaddress (rule 1 ofOrder7).Ifthe 30 trading name isapparently thename ofanindividual,the plaintiff, ifhe isaware ofit,should add tothe defendant's name in the title to the writthewords«atrading name».Wherepersonsaresuedin the name of their firm they shall appear individually in their own names -(Order 11, rule 5). 35 The aforesaid are rulesof procedure and do notsupport in any way thecase for the appellant. 4 1 C.L.R. I n re Antoniou Styllanides J . «ERA Fashions» is simply a trading name or a business description; itisabusinessnameunderwhichtheindividualNicos Antoniou was carrying on business. «ERA Fashions» is not a company registered under the Companies Act. Ithas no separate 5 entity inlaw. We find no merit in the argument of counsel that «Nicos Antoniou trading as ERA Fashions» is a different person from Nicos Antoniou, the physical person against whom execution of theJudgment issought inthiscountry. 10 Appeal ishereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed withcosts. 5