Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others: TCC 22 May 2013

The claimant sought an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim. The solicitors said that they had misread the relevant Rules.
Held: The solicitors had acted on the basis of the former practice, but the rules had been substantially changed, and the court is now to consider: ‘all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need- (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.’ and ‘when the circumstances are considered as a whole, particularly in the light of the stricter approach that must now be taken by the courts towards those who fail to comply with rules following the new changes to the CPR, this is a case where the court should refuse permission to extend time. The Claimant has taken quite long enough to bring these proceedings and enough is now enough. I therefore refuse this application. ‘

Edwards-Stuart J
[2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC)
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
CitedPrice v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
See AlsoStolzenberg and others v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd and others CA 30-Jun-2004
The court considered the issue of the use of a strike out as a sanction for non-compliance with a court order.
Held: The approach of the court in a case considering relief for sanctions – exemplified by RC Residuals v Linton Fuel was bound to . .
CitedCIBC Mellon Trust Company and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 3-Feb-2003
Application to set aside judgments entered on failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders.
Held: Etherton J said: ‘The Court of Appeal has laid down guidance as to the approach of the Court when considering an application for relief from sanctions . .
CitedHashtroodi v Hancock CA 27-May-2004
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the . .
CitedFred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd and Another CA 1-Feb-2012
Lewison LJ cited with approval paragraph 6.5 of the Jackson report, which said: ‘courts at all levels have become too tolerant of delays and non-compliance with orders. In so doing they have lost sight of the damage which the culture of delay and . .
CitedTotty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust CA 31-Jul-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 . .
CitedCollier v Williams and others CA 25-Jan-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 . .
CitedHoddinott and others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd CA 21-Nov-2007
The claimant had issued proceedings and the defendant filed an acknowledgement, and then argued that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimant appealed against an order declining jurisdiction.
Held: Where a party filed an acknowledgement, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.510044