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 not well drawn. There was no need to give the rule a restricted meaning, and nor should it be used to overrule the effect of another rule. This was an application containing an error rather than no application. The applicant had good reason for non service and therefore rule 7.6(2) did not apply.
Judges:
May, Tuckey, Dyson LJJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 96, Times 15-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2819, [2005] 2 All ER 256
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc CA 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 . .
Cited by:
Disapproved – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Cited – Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) CA 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules, Professional Negligence
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222567