header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 September 2009 / Ruth Pratt
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Running out of time

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll