Ambrose J:

This is a special case stated by the parties pursuant to a consent order made on 23 October 1964. The question of law raised by the special case for the opinion of the Court is this: is the plaintiffs' claim against Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd, the present defendants, barred by limitation for the reason that the present defendants were substituted for Malaya Indonesia Line, the original defendants, after the expiry of the limitation period of one year?

The facts stated in the special case are as follows. By a bill of lading dated 10 December 1962 the present defendants acknowledged the shipment of 2900 bags of sodium tripolyphosphate by International Div Allied Chemical Corp. on the present defendants' vessel "Hermund" at Philadelphia; and they agreed to deliver the goods at Port Swettenham to the order of the shipper. Clause 2 of the bill of lading provides that if the goods are shipped from a port in the United States of America the bill of lading shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea of the United States. The goods were in fact shipped from a port in the United States. Section 3(6) of the Act reads as follows:

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

The plaintiffs presented the bill of lading at Port Swettenham and took delivery thereunder within a few days of 15 February 1963. The limitation period expired accordingly within a few days of 15 February 1964.

The bill of lading was headed with the words "Malaya Indonesia Line". The plaintiffs commenced this action against Malaya Indonesia Line on 14 January 1964. The claim indorsed on the writ of summons is for damages for breach of contract or duty and/or for negligence in and about the carriage of 2900 bags of sodium tripolyphosphate under a bill of lading dated in December 1962.

A conditional appearance was entered by Malaya Indonesia Line, the original defendants. By summons in chambers No. 118 of 1964 dated 25 January 1964 they applied for an order that the writ of summons be set aside for irregularity on the grounds that (a) the defendants were not an entity known to the law and (b) the notice delivered at the time of service of the writ was bad. In support of the application an affidavit by AP Godwin was filed on 25 January 1964. In reply an affidavit by M Karthigesu was filed on 29 January 1964. The application was heard by Chua J on 21 February 1964 and adjourned to 3 April 1964.

By summons in chambers No. 411 of 1964 dated 26 March 1964 the plaintiffs applied for an order that Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd be substituted as defendants in place of Malaya Indonesia Line and that service of the amended writ and statement of claim be dispensed with, and for such further or other order as the Court may deem necessary. In support of the application an affidavit by M Karthigesu was filed on 26 March 1964. In reply an affidavit by CL Duff was filed on 1 April 1964. This application was heard by Chua J on 3 April 1964 when it was ordered that Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd be substituted as defendants in place of Malaya Indonesia Line, that the plaintiffs be at liberty to am end the writ and statement of claim accordingly, and that service of the amended writ and statement of claim be dispensed with.

It is not disputed that "Malaya Indonesia Line" is a name under which business is done by three shipping companies in association with one another. They are the Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd, the Ocean Steam Ship Co. Ltd and the China Mutual Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. It is not disputed that Mansfield & Co. Ltd are the agents of Malaya Indonesia Line and that they were served with the writ in this action in their capacity as such agents.

The submission of Counsel for the present defendants is as follows. The order of 3 April 1964 was made under