ftsg») 1988September26 (STVLIANIDES,KOURRIS,BOYADJIS,JJ.) AVRAAMAVRAAMIDES, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SAWAS CHRISTODOULOU, Respondent (CivilAppeal No. 7116). CivilProcedure — Titleof action —Individual tradingunder a business name —Practice—Failuretoadd the words'trading inthestyleof », butaverringintheStatement ofclaimthattheparty wastrading under such name — Omissionnot fataltothe action. Business name —Not an entity separatefrom theindividualusingit 5 The name of the plaintiff in the writ of summons is «Avraam Avraamides». The statement of claim avers that the plaintiff at all material times in this action was trading under the business name MANDESON INSTITUTE Asthe defendant tothe action did notappear, thecasewasfixed JQ for proof. The plaintiff adduced his evidence, but the trial Judge dismissedtheclaimof£20(balanceofpriceofgoodssoldanddelivered and £65.-for services rendered) on the ground that the name of the plaintiff was not referred to in {he*<written contract produced in evidence.Infactthecontractreferred toMANDESONINSTITUTE. 15 Held, allowingthe appeal:
(1)There isno differentiation between the business name of an individual and his physical person; a businessnamedoesnotconstituteaseparatelegalentity;ajudgment issued against a person trading under a business name may be enforced againstthatindividual. 20
(2)Inthiscasethestatementofclaimclearlydisclosedthecapacity of the plaintiff. The omission ofthe words«trading as MANDESON WbinUTE» inthedescriptionoftheplaintiffinthetitleoftheaction isnot inthe circumstances fatal. Appeal allowed withcosts. 2 5 562 Λ CXJL Avraamides τ.Cfaxtstodootots Casesreferredto: InreAntoniou
(1988)1C.L.R.
- Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against thejudgment of theDistrictCourtof 5 Nicosia (Michaelides, D.J.)dated the 17th January, 1986 (Action No.5838/85) whereby hisactionfor£20.-balanceofagreed price of goods (casettes)sold anddelivered, £65.-forservicesrendered and £40.-damages for breach of contractwas dismissed. D.Aristidou,for the appellant. 10 No appearance for the defendant STYUANIDES J. gave the following judgment of the Court. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of a Civil Action (D.C.N.5838/85) brought against the respondent-defendant. The name of the plaintiff in the writ of summons is «Avraam 15 Avraamides». Paragraph 1 of the statementof claim reads:- 20 «
- The plaintiff at all material times in this action was trading the system of learning the English language MANDESON and was known and/or was trading under the business nameMANDESONINSTITUTE.» The plaintiff s claim is for £20.- balance of agreed price of goods (cassettes)sold anddelivered, £65.-forservicesrenderedto the children of the defendant by virtue of a written contract between the parties and £40.- damages for breach of the said 25 contract. . The writ of summonswas served on thedefendant. Atthetime fixed by,the writ of summons - 20th December, 1985 - for the appearance of the defendant, the advocate for the plaintiff appeared butthedefendant didnot. 30 As the matter is governed by rule 12 of Order 65, which provides that if at the time fixed by the writ of summons for the appearance of the defendant the plaintiff appears but the defendantdoesnot,menuponproof being givenofthe defendant having been served with the writ of summons, the plaintiff may 35 .prove his claim, so far as theburden of proof lies upon him,and 563 StyUanides J. Avraamides v. Chrlstodoulon
(1980)judgment maybe givenaccordingly,thetrialJudgeaajourned the case for proof on 17th January, 1986. On 17th January, 1986, the accountant of the plaintiff gave evidence. He verified on oath the allegations set out in the statement of claim and produced the contract entered into between the parties -(Exhibit 1). 5 The learned trial Judge dismissed the action, his reasoning being that the contract (Exhibit 1)nowhere mentions the nameof the plaintiff. The contract isbefore us.Thepartiestheretoare «MANDESON INSTITUTE»and the DEFENDANT. * We have already referred to paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, where itisaverred thattheplaintiff atallmaterial timeswas known and/or wastrading underthebusinessname MANDESON INSTITUTE. Business name means the name or style under which any businessiscarried on. 10 15 There was sufficient evidence before the trial Court that MANDESON INSTITUTE isthe business name of the plaintiff. In Civil Appeal No. 6918* it was held that there is no 20 differentiation between thebusinessnameofanindividualandhis physical person, that a business name does not constitute a separate legal entity and that ajudgment issued against a person trading under a business name may be enforced against that individual. Itisdesirable inthese casesthat the name ofthe plaintiff on the writofsummonsshouldbethename oftheindividualandthen the words «trading as »to follow, and in the statement of claim to aver that «at all material times the plaintiff carried on business under the style,or firm name,or ». Inthe present case, the statement of claim clearly disclosed the capacity of the plaintiff, the style under which he wastrading and the identification of the plaintiff with the business name MANDESON INSTTTUTE.The omission ofthe words«trading as •SeeInreAntoniou
(1988)1 C.LR 1. 564 25 30 1C.L.B. Avraamldevv.ChrUtodoulou Stytianldes^ MANDESON INSTITUTE»inthe description of theplaintiff inthe titleof the action isnotinthe circumstances fatal. The claimfor £40.- damages waswithdrawn. The uncontested evidence adduced bytheplaintiff, sufficiently 5 proved the claim of the plaintiff so far asthe burden of proof lay upon him. Theappeal succeeds. Judgment is issued for the plaintiff against the defendant for £85.-with costsboth before thisCourtand the District Court. 10 Appeal allowed with costs hereandintheCourt below. r 565