Out Of Time? – The Effect Of A Stay In Proceedings Before Service Of The Claim Form

In the recent case of Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal that a claim was served in time after a stay in proceedings (a Court ruling in civil cases, which halts legal proceedings in a trial) was imposed by the Court following issue but before service of the claim form.

Grant v Dawn Meats (UK)

Case Overview

The Claimant was an employee of the Defendant. The Defendant admitted liability in relation to an accident that the Claimant suffered at work. However, the parties did not agree on the quantum of the claim and the Claimant therefore issued a claim under Part 8, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims.

The Claimant required further medical evidence in respect of the quantification of his claim but issued proceedings as a protective measure as the limitation period was due to expire. A stay in proceedings was sought by the Claimant and was granted for three months and further extended for almost another two months.

Service of the claim form was halted by the Claimant in accordance with the stay and the Claimant calculated the 4 month period as set out in CPR r7.5(1) for service of the claim form by excluding the period in which the stay was in place.

The Defendant took issue with this calculation and applied for a declaration that the claim form had not been served in time and to strike out the claim, as the stay did not affect the Claimant’s obligation to serve the claim form within the 4-month period.

In the initial Court proceedings, DDJ Davy held that the stay applied to every step otherwise required by the CPR, including service of the claim form and that the claim was served in time. The Defendant appealed and Judge Gore QC came to the opposite finding.

However, the Claimant appealed the decision of Judge Gore QC and Lord Coulson LJ reinstated the decision of DDJ Davy and dismissed the Defendant’s application for the claim to be struck out. Lord Coulson LJ criticised the suggestion that the stay did not operate to stay the time limit within which the Claimant must serve proceedings.

His judgment quoted paragraph 3.1.8 of the White Book:

“The making of a stay imposes a halt, not only upon proceedings, but also upon the expiration of any time limit in those proceedings which have not expired when the stay was imposed.”

Comment

Whilst this decision relates to a personal injury quantum claim, it is useful to note for all claims, particularly in probate and trusts claims, where the parties are likely to agree to a stay in proceedings to enter into ADR. Claimants have the comfort of issuing their claim to avoid limitation issues and can take advantage of exploring ADR before proceedings are served and before costs begin to escalate rapidly.