header-logo header-logo

03 September 2009 / Ruth Pratt
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Running out of time

Ruth Pratt considers extending time for service of a claim form

Claimants have four months from the date of issue to serve the claim form (six months if serving out of the jurisdiction).

Time for service can be extended on application: if made within the time limit, under CPR 7.6(2); if made outside the time limit, under CPR 7.6(3). CPR 7.6(3) provides a threshold checklist of conditions which must be satisfied before the court can order an extension. The court may make such an order only if—(i) the court has failed to serve the claim form; or (ii) the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to comply with R 7.5 but has been unable to do so; and (iii) in either case, the claimant has acted promptly in making the application.

There is no such checklist under CPR 7.6(2).
 

The cases
 

The exercise of the discretion is dependent on the individual facts of each case. The recent first instance decisions in Imperial Cancer, FG Hawkes v Beli Shipping and Sodastream

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll