Of recent, KISCH IP has tasted tremendous success in the Supreme
Court of Appeal. In one such an instance, the court found that an
order amending the incorrect description of a defendant in a
summons does not amount to substitution of the defendant, in a case
where the summons was served at the offices and on the director
shared by the incorrectly cited party and the true defendant, while
the true defendant was clearly recognisable from the original
summons.
In this case, action was instituted by the respondents
(plaintiff in the court a quo) based on amongst others, breach of
contract, unlawful competition and unauthorised use of the
respondents' proprietary information. The summons served in
respect of the action cited the defendants as FOXLAKE
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD ("Foxlake") t/a FOXWAY DEVELOPMENTS
(PTY) LTD ("Foxway"). It later transpired that
Foxlake and Foxway were actually two separate legal entities,
despite their sharing a common office building,
