The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the court to exercise its discretion or whether he was entitled … Continue reading Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd: CA 22 Sep 2006
Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms. Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could reconsider an application made without notice and on paper, and whether the Hashtroodi guidance was being … Continue reading Collier v Williams and others: CA 25 Jan 2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking had been in error. After proceedings were then issued in … Continue reading Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4): CA 19 May 2006
The claimant had served proceedings on a representative without first checking that they had authority to accept service. This was discovered too late, and applied for an extension of time for service. The application was refused. The requirement to ensure that the person served had such authority was now clear, and the claim form must … Continue reading Mark Smith v David Probyn, PGA European Tour Ltd: QBD 25 Feb 2000
Second appeal arising out of an application by the Appellant for an extension of time in which to serve a claim form pursuant to CPR 7.6(2). Judges: Lady Justice Simler Lord Justice Popplewell And Lady Justice Carr Citations: [2022] EWCA Civ 1037 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 7.6(2), Athens Convention 2002 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading ST v BAI (SA) (T/A Brittany Ferries): CA 27 Jul 2022
Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but served only eventually made with letters claimed to be equivocal. The question was what constituted service. … Continue reading Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005
The claimant had sought an extension of time for service of her claim form in her action for personal injury. The solicitors in error did not include the words ‘claim form’ in their request. The judge had initially held the error was one of drafting not of procedure, and refused rectification. Held: The distinction was … Continue reading Steele v Mooney and others: CA 8 Feb 2005
The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal. Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an important point of principle or practice’ is to an important point of principle or practice that … Continue reading Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd: CA 3 Feb 2005
In the course of a long dispute, the defendant’s solicitors had indicated that they would accept service of proceedings. Just before the limitation period expired, the papers were served directly in the client. The defendants solicitors said that this was invalid service, and that later service out of time could not revive the claim. Held: … Continue reading Firstdale Ltd v Quinton: ComC 5 Aug 2004
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law. Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in default succeeded. The claimant’s applications in respect of CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 were refused. The Civil … Continue reading Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court’s discretion might then be exercised according … Continue reading Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003
The applicant’s claim had been dismissed for late service. The defendant had in fact received the documents, but the service appeared deemed to be out of time. The subsequent decisions of Anderton and Godwin meant that the judge’s reasoning no longer applied. Held: In such cases the discretion available to the court under the rules … Continue reading Wilkey and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: CA 22 Oct 2002
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second … Continue reading Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001
Where a party had served a claim form, but then failed to serve the particulars of claim within the appropriate time limit, the court had full discretion to allow an extension of time for service. It had been argued that the same rules applied both to the issue of the claim form, and the particulars … Continue reading Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust: CA 31 Jul 2001
The requirement is that documents must be served at the address nominated for this purpose by the prospective defendant under the rules. Where a solicitor was so nominated, it was not open to the claimant to serve papers at a different address. In this case, the claimant solicitors having noticed their mistake had not done … Continue reading Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust: CA 23 Jan 2001
The appellant claimed personal injuries. His solicitors issued a claim form within the limitation period, but only served it after the expiry of the four month period after the date of issue within which CPR 7.5 stipulated that the claim had to be served. CPR 7.6 provided that a claimant could apply for an order … Continue reading Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc: CA 2001
Where a court could no longer grant an extension of time for service of proceedings under rule 7.6, a court could, in appropriate circumstances, achieve the desired result by dispensing with service under rule 6.9. Here the parties had long been in negotiation, and the receiving party knew entirely of the document which was to … Continue reading Infantino v Maclean: QBD 20 Jul 2001
Where a claim form is served in time but is incorrectly served (in this case on the defendants’ insurers instead of on the defendants themselves), there is no power in the court under CPR 3.10(b) (remedy of errors of procedure) or CPR 6.8 (service by an alternative method) retrospectively to remedy the error by deeming … Continue reading Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc: CA 24 Jan 2001
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
