header-logo header-logo

04 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

American Leisure Group Ltd v Garrard and others [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 218 (Jun)

CPR 7.5(2) was not concerned with, and did not permit, service of a claim form within the jurisdiction. The scheme of CPR 7.5 was clear. CPR 7.5(1) was concerned with the service of a claim form within the jurisdiction and CPR 7.5(2) was concerned with its service out of the jurisdiction. That was made clear, not only by the words in CPR 7.5(2), but also by the opening words of CPR 7.5(1). The effect of CPR 7.5 was that a claim form was valid for service within the jurisdiction for four months after the date of its issue or, if it was to be served out of the jurisdiction, for six months after the date of issue. 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll