American Leisure Group Ltd v Garrard & Ors
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case deals with the validity of the service of a claim form and subsequent applications for extensions and validation. The core issues include compliance with CPR 7.5's time limits and the court's discretion under CPR 7.6 (3) and 6.15 (2). The claimant sought remedies due to a potential statute of limitations while the court held the service was invalid and denied extensions or alternative validation.
Judgment
Mr Justice David Richards :
There are two applications before the court. First, the first defendant applies for a declaration that the purported service of a claim form dated 7 August 2013 and the accompanying particulars of claim on 20 January 2014 was not valid and for an order dismissing the proceedings as against the first defendant. The claimant opposes this application, submitting that the claim form was duly served on 20 January 2014. The second application is made by the claimant in the event that service of the claim form was not duly effected. In that event, the claimant applies either for an extension of time under CPR 7.6 (3) to comply with the rules for serving the claim form on the first defendant or for an order under CPR 6.15 (2) that the steps already taken are sufficient to have brought the claim form to the attention of the first defendant.
A claim form is valid for service within the jurisdiction for 4 months after the date of its issue or, if it is to be served out of the jurisdiction, for 6 months after the date of issue. This is the effect of CPR 7.5 which provides (omitting the table in 7.5(1)):
“(1) Where the claim form is served within the jurisdiction, the claimant must complete the step required by the following table in relation to the particular method of service chosen, before 12.00 midnight on the calendar day four months after the date of issue of the claim form.
(2) Where the claim form is to be served out of the jurisdiction, the claim form must be served in accordance with Section IV of Part 6 within 6 months of the date of issue.”
The problem in the present case arises in this way. Although the claim form was issued on 7 August 2013, no attempt had been made to serve it on any of the defendants by December 2013 when there was a change in solicitors acting for the claimant. The claim form gave two addresses for the first defendant, an individual, one in Switzerland and one in London. The claimant’s evidence is that it understood that the Swiss address was the first defendant’s residential address and the London address was his office address. The claimant’s new solicitors “had doubts” (correctly) that an office address would be a valid address for service and considered that he ought to be served at the Swiss address. In fact, the first defendant was resident in London and had been since about January 2011. He had resided at the Swiss address for two years or so but moved back to the London flat where he h