header-logo header-logo

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil Litigation

Drury v BBC [2007] EWCA Civ 497, [2007] All ER (D) 384 (May)

CPR 7.6(3)(b) (extension of time for serving a claim form) requires the judge to consider whether all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the defendant during the four-month period allowed.  Attempts made after that time are irrelevant.

The right approach is to consider what steps were taken in the four-month period and then to ask whether, in the circumstances, those steps were all that it was reasonable for the claimant to have taken.  The test is whether what the claimant had done was objectively reasonable, given the circumstances that prevailed. 

A litigant who leaves his efforts at service to the last moment and then fails due to an unexpected problem is very unlikely to persuade the court that he has taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim in time. Without such a finding, the court is unable to extend time, and both sub-paras (b) and (c) of P 7.6(3) have to be satisfied for the court to have discretion to grant relief.

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll