Practical Considerations When Seeking an Extension of Time for the Claim Form: Lloyds Developments v Accor SA

Background

The Claimants (now in administration) were a Guernsey company incorporated to own and manage a hotel development site in Glasgow. The Defendants are a French corporation operating worldwide hotels through subsidiaries including its UK subsidiary, Accor Hotel Services UK Ltd (AHS). The parties entered into an agreement for the construction and management of a hotel built “Tribe” brand standards, with AHS to manage the completed hotel for 35 years.

In March 2019, disputes arose when the former owner of the Tribe band expressed dissatisfaction with the Glasgow hotel design, leading AHS to inform the Claimant that the design infringed retained copyright. The claimant agreed to change its designs, causing delays which combined with the copyright issues, led to the withdrawal of the claimant’s funders and the purported acceptance of AHS’ repudiatory breach in July 2020.

The Claimant issued proceedings against AHS in 2022 alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation with the trial listed for November 2026.

The present proceedings were issued on 20 December 2024 against the defendant, requiring the court’s permission for service out of the jurisdiction with a deadline of 20 June 2025 under CPR 7.5(2). On 2 May 2025, the claimant applied without notice for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction and for a four-month extension of time for service, with both applications being granted on 7 May 2025, extending the service deadline to 19 September 2025. The claimant served the proceedings in France on 18 September 2025, with the defendant subsequently applying on 22 October 2025 to set aside Waksman J’s original extension order.

The claim against the defendant comprises three elements:

The defendant contended that the claimant had failed to show sufficient reason for the extension and had materially failed to disclose that the extension would arguably deprive it of a limitation defence, while the claimant maintained that no limitation defence arose and that the extension was properly granted.

What did the Court decide?

The extension of time for service granted by Waksman J was set aside and it was declared that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim.

The court emphasised that defendants have a right to be sued within the statutory limitation period and served within the initial validity period, with departures requiring justification, and that the reason for an inability to serve within time is highly material, with very good reasons more likely to secure an extension of time.

The court concluded that the claimant had failed to demonstrate any good reason for extending time for service of the claim form, distinguishing this from extensions for particulars of claim. Crucially, the court held that the claimant’s explanation for delay (awaiting finalisation of amendments in the parallel AHS proceedings) could only assist with service of particulars of claim, not the claim form itself; there being no suggestion the claim form required amendment to mirror developments in the other proceedings. The court rejected the argument that the claimant’s administration status provided good reason, noting that if administrators choose to commence proceedings, they must ensure compliance with CPR time limits. It was also noted that the claimant had not provided any specific evidence as to how the administration affected the ability to serve within the prescribed service period.

The court found the claimant’s other justifications inadequate. Namely (1) any uncertainty about the time needed to obtain permission to serve outside the jurisdiction carried little to no weight; and (2) general reference to ‘uncertainties’ about the time it may take to serve the Defendant in France was insufficiently specific and failed to explain why the Foreign Process Service was required, along with no assessment of the availability of other permissible methods under the Hague Service Convention had been undertaken.

Significantly, and most notably, the court emphasised the claimant’s lack of urgency in dealing with the issue of service. The extension application was not made until 19 weeks after issue of the claim form with little to no explanation of any steps taken in the interim.

On material non-disclosure, the court found that the claimant had failed to inform Waksman J that the primary limitation period would expire in August 2025 and that the requested extension would take service beyond this date, potentially depriving the defendant of a limitation defence. The court held this to be a significant failure which would have resulted in the setting aside of the order granting the extension, potentially limiting any extension to the expiry of the primary limitation period

What are the practical implications?

Practitioners should approach an application under CPR 7.6(2) on the basis that it requires a clear and properly evidenced justification. It will not be enough to rely on case management preference, such as wanting to align pleadings in related proceedings, internal funding or administrative processes or generalised references to delay in serving abroad.

It is therefore important that you contact legal advisors who understand the practical implications of this case and ensure that you are protected.