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

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

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