The Importance Of Serving The Claim Form On Time

When issuing a claim, the standard time for the applicant to serve the claim is four months after it has been issued. Failure to serve the claim form within the four months will result in the claim lapsing and will render it void, unless an extension of time is obtained before the period to serve expires.

CPR rule 7.6 allows the applicant to apply for an extension of time for serving the claim form. Rule 7.6 sets out specific criteria as to when an application to extend service will be allowed, which are as follows:

• The application must be made within the period specified under rule 7.5 (i.e. within the time allowed to initially serve the claim); or
• If an order has previously been made in accordance with rule 7.6, within the time specified in that order; and
• The application is supported by evidence.

Rule 7.6 also sets out that an applicant can apply for an extension out of time but only when the Court has failed to serve the claim form or, the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to comply with service but has been unable to do so and the applicant has acted promptly in making his/her application for an extension. The rules under rule 7.6, therefore, provides clear guidance on how to apply for an extension and stresses the importance of seeking to stick to the standing rule.

Case law

The Court recently considered the use of the above rules in the case of Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd and another when the Claimant sought an extension after the originally granted extension had expired. In this case, the Claimants’ Solicitor served the claim on the Defendants but mistakenly failed to include the claim form. This was only noticed six days after, at which time, the requirement to serve in accordance with a previous order made pursuant to rule 7.6 had passed. The Defendants, of course, picked up on this and argued the Claimants proceedings were now nullified.

The Claimants applied to vary the previous order and for relief from sanction on the grounds the claim form was omitted due to the disruption in the usual working arrangements caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Court firstly commented that the Claimants had not taken all reasonable steps to comply with service in accordance with the previous order and therefore an application, if made pursuant to rule 7.6, would fail. Similarly, the Court refused to grant relief from sanctions as they felt the Claimants had not taken the appropriate steps to serve the claim form and the delay was significant. Further, allowing an extension would result in the Defendant losing their limitation defences.

Comment

This case highlights the importance of serving the claim form within the specified time, especially where limitation is an issue, as failure to do so, could render the claim void and prevent the Claimant from bringing a claim where otherwise limitation had passed.