[2004] EWCA Civ 912,13 July 2004. Appeal raises question of whether a court has the power to permit a tenant who is applying for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II to amend a claim by adding or substituting a name after the end of the period specified by the s29(3). The respondents (G) were executors of the landlord's will and had terminated the appellant P's lease by issuing a s25 notice. The freehold was transferred to a third party (X). P issued a claim form applying for a new tenancy under s29 naming G as the defendants. G objected to the new tenancy on the ground that they were not the landlord within the meaning of s44. P applied to amend their claim by substituting X for G. By this time the s29(3) time limit had expired. HC dismissed application on the ground that it was out of time and held that the Act did not fall within Civil Procedure Rules Part 19.5(1)(C) as it did not contain a provision which allowed or disallowed the substitution or adding or parties. CA held that the application to amend the claim at the end of the prescribed limitation period was allowed as the Act did not prohibit it. The necessary conditions for substituting a party under Civil Procedure Rules Part 19(5(1) had been met. It was clear from the facts of the case that P intended to sue their competent landlord but by mistake named the wrong person. "Smithkline Beecham plc and another v Horne Roberts" ([2001] EWCA Civ 2001, [2002] 1 WLR 1662) applied. Appeal allowed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.