I move amendment No. 8 :
Before section 14, to insert a new section as follows :—
" (1) A person carrying on business under a business name which is not registered may at the option of the plaintiff be sued under such business name and service of a summons or other originating document or any other document in legal proceedings may be served either upon the person so carrying on business by sending the same addressed to the person under the business name or upon any person having at the time of the service control or management of the business at the place where it is carried on and such service shall be good service upon the person so sued whether the person is out of the jurisdiction or not and no leave to issue the summons or other originating document shall be necessary.
(2) Where a plaintiff sues a person under his business name, he may apply to the Court for an Order directing any person or persons named in that order in the employment of the business to furnish on oath the name and address of the person carrying on the business at the time of the accruing of the cause of action and verified on oath or otherwise as the Court may direct."
There is a drafting mistake in the amendment. Subsection (2) should read : " Where under subsection (1) hereof . . ." It applies to a case where a person is sued under a business name, as such, and not under his own name. It is quite vital for the purposes of the Bill that there should be some method by which you can sue a person, or a firm, carrying on business under a business name. If you cannot do that, the whole Bill will be as useless as the present Act. The present Registration of Business Names Act is useless in perhaps 50 per cent of the cases that come up for examination in the ordinary way by solicitors or members of the public. The position will be the same if this Bill has not same teeth in it and this is the only way I can see of putting teeth in it.