0370 270 6000

Totty v Snowden; Hewitt, Wirral, Cheshire Community NHS Trust, Court of Appeal, 31 July 2001

6 August 2001
The issues

Procedure – Extensions of time for service of claim form – Particulars of Claim not complying with requirements of Part 16, Civil Procedure Rules.

The facts

This was yet another case involving the courts powers under part 7.6 in respect of time for serving the claim form. The Court of Appeal considered two contrary decisions of the courts below in each case. Both defendants argued that part 7.6 applied not merely to Claim Forms but Particulars of Claim, relying on a series of robust decisions following Kaur v CTP Coils Limited (if the strict conditions in part 7.6 (3) are unsatisfied – i.e. court unable to serve claim form or the claimant has taken reasonable steps to serve the Claim Form but has been unable to do so and in both cases the claimant had acted promptly – then other provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot be relied upon to enable the court to extend time for service). The claimants argued that 7.6 applied to the Claim Form only, not to Particulars of Claim and that extensions of time in respect of Particulars of Claim could be dealt with under the courts general case management powers in part 3.

The decision

1. Particulars of Claim were not an integral part of the Claim Form. Coming to the decision, the court considered 7.4 which sets out that Particulars of Claim can be served with the Claim Form or within 14 days of the Claim Form. The claim was not necessarily defective because the Particulars of Claim had not been served.

2. For the defendants to succeed therefore, the court would have to find that the provisions of 7.6 could be applied to Particulars of Claim as well as the Claim Form.

3. Where there were clear express words, in the rules the court was not able to use the overriding objective to achieve what it would otherwise have considered to have been a just result. (see Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer).

Where there were no express words the court had to decide which interpretation was the best reflection of the overriding objective.

The defendant’s interpretation would lead to potentially draconian consequences for minor faults.

In any event, the defendants argument led to an absurd conclusion namely that if the Particulars of Claim fell within part 7.6, the claimant would effectively have to ask for an order for extension of time for service of the claim even if the Claim Form itself had been validly served. (but this is circular surely – if the Claim Form included the Particulars of Claim and service of the Claim Form without the Particulars of Claim will not amount to a valid service?) Therefore the court had discretion under part 3 to extend time for service of the Particulars of Claim in appropriate circumstances.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


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