0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Vinos v Marks & Spencers, Court of Appeal

12 June 2000
The issues

Power to extend time for service of a Claim Form where the period provided for service in Civil Procedure Rules 7.6(2) had expired and provisions of Civil Procedure Rules 7.6(3) did not apply

The facts

The Claimant was injured on 28th May 1996. Negotiations ensued with insurers. On 20th May 1999 the Claimant’s solicitors issued a Claim form. The Form was not served until 29th September 1999 – 9 days after the 4 month period had expired. The Claimant’s solicitors had no explanation other than oversight. They applied for an extension of time. The Judge at first instance dismissed the Claimant’s Application and set aside the Claim Form for failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules 7.6. The Judge found that he had no discretion to extend time but that if he had discretion he would have exercised it in the Claimant’s favour. On appeal the Claimants argued that the provisions of Civil Procedure Rules 1.2 and Civil Procedure Rules 3.10 gave the Court a general discretion to extend time.

The decision

Civil Procedure Rules 7.6 (3) provided that the Court could only extend time of the Court had been unable to serve the Claim Form or if the Claimant had taken all reasonable steps to try to serve the Claim Form but had been unable to do so and in either case that the Claimant had acted promptly. In this case the Claimant had acted promptly but it was not a case where the Court had been unable to serve. It was not the case that the Claimant’s solicitors had taken all reasonable steps to serve. Accordingly, the rule not only did not empower the Court to extend time, but positively precluded the Court from doing so. The discretionary power in 31(2)(a) to extend period generally did not apply because that rule applied “except where these rules provide otherwise” and 7.6 clearly provided otherwise. Nor could the words of Civil Procedure Rules 3.10 be extended to enable the Court to do what Civil Procedure Rules 7.6 (3) specifically forbade.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up