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

White v Somerset County Council, Liverpool County Court

12 May 2005
The issues

Service Out Of Time – Validity Of Claim Form – Whether Date On Notice Of Issue Supersedes Date On Claim Form

The facts

The Claimant issued proceedings on 3rd December 2004. The Claim Form was dated with that date. The Notice of Issue was dated 7th December. The Claimant’s solicitor served proceedings on 5th April. The different dates had been caused by an error on the part of Court staff. The Claimant’s solicitor relied on the later date. The Claimant applied for a declaration that service had been effective or if unsuccessful in that application for permission to extend time for service pursuant to CPR 7.6 or in the further alternative, for an Order that service be dispensed pursuant to CPR 6.9.

The decision

The Claim Form is issued on the date entered on the form by the Court (CPR 7.2) (2). The fact that the Notice of Issue incorrectly stated another and later date did not alter this. The Claimant’s solicitor had therefore failed to affect service within the four months permitted by the rules.

The Application for an extension of time under CPR 7.6 failed. The rule had to be construed strictly (Vinos v Marks and Spencer) and it could not be said that the Claimant had taken all reasonable steps to serve the Claim Form.

The Application under CPR 6.9 also failed. The Court only had discretion to dispense with service in exceptional circumstances if there had been an attempt, albeit ineffective, to serve the Claim Form in time (see Anderton v Clwyd County Council and Cranfield v Bridgegrove). Otherwise CPR 6.9 could not be invoked to dispense with service when what was to be done was in substance that which Rule 7.6 (3) forbayed. (See Godwin v Swindon Borough Council).

Claim dismissed.

Comments

For further information on the above case please contact Roger Harris of 2 Temple Gardens at rharris @2tg.co.uk of 2 Temple Gardens and Daniel Turner of Veitch Penny at danielturner@veitchpenny.co.uk

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