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

Forgotten your password?

Robert v Momentum Services Ltd, Court of Appeal, 11 February 2003

18 February 2003
The issues

Extension of time – Particulars of Claim CPR Part 3.

The facts

The Claimant made an Application for an extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim under CPR Part 3.1(ii) (a). The District Judge granted the extension. Judge Collins allowed the Appeal of the Defendant from that decision. The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

1. Part 3.1(ii)(a) contained no list of criteria for the exercise of discretion to grant an extension of time. This was in contrast with Part 7.6 (extension of time for serving a Claim Form) and Part 3.9 (relief from sanctions). (Part 3.1(ii)(a) entitles the Court to extend or shorten time for compliance with any Rule, Practice Direction or Court Order). There was no reason to import by implication into Rule 3.1(ii)(a) the checklist in Rule 3.9, because here the Application for an extension of time was made before the expiry of the time limit in question. It was not an Application for relief from sanctions. The Judge therefore had been wrong to criticise the District Judge for failing to apply the Part 3.9 checklist.

2. The Court had been told that District Judges were showing an inconsistency of approach in dealing with the issue of prejudice when exercising their powers under Rule 3.1(ii)(a). There was a difference of opinion as to whether the prejudice should be viewed as being since the date when the Statement of Claim should have been served or that once there had been a failure to serve, that the Defendant could complain of any prejudice whenever suffered. As a general rule, the focus of attention should be on the prejudice caused by the failure itself and not on pre-existing prejudice.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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