May 2019
« Jul    

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others; QBD 29 Jun 2015

References: [2015] EWHC 1847 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Nicol J
Urders allowimg extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim.
This case cites:

  • Cited – Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust CA (Times 10-Aug-01, Gazette 04-Oct-01, [2001] 4 All ER 577, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1415)
    Where a party had served a claim form, but then failed to serve the particulars of claim within the appropriate time limit, the court had full discretion to allow an extension of time for service. It had been argued that the same rules applied both . .
  • Cited – Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation CA (Gazette 06-Dec-01, Times 13-Dec-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1534, [2002] EMLR 318, [2002] EMLR 17)
    The claimants issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused to . .
  • Cited – Robert v Momentum Services Ltd CA (Times 13-Feb-03, Gazette 10-Apr-03, Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 299, [2003] 1 WLR 1577)
    The claimant appealed against an order refusing an extension of time for service of her particulars of claim. She had made the application before the period expired.
    Held: The rules made a clear distinction between applications made before . .
  • Cited – Lincolnshire County Council v Mouchel Business Services Ltd and Another TCC (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 352 (TCC))
    . .
  • Cited – Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 661, [2014] 4 Cost LR 660)
    ‘The paying parties appeal against a decision of the High Court reversing a decision of the costs judge, whereby he declined to set aside his earlier order granting an extension of time for serving the points of dispute. The principal issues in this . .
  • Cited – Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others CA ([2014] WLR(D) 299, WLRD, Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] BLR 547, [2014] 4 Costs LR 752, [2014] CP Rep 40, [2014] 1 WLR 3926, 154 Con LR 1)
    Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance:
    Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or significance of the breach. If it is not serious or . .

Leave a Reply