![BL-2021-000228 - [2025] EWHC 2222 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Discussion and Conclusion
Given my conclusions about the steps taken by the claimants to effect service - those steps were not all reasonable steps within the agreed period of validity of the claim form - CPR 7.6(3) is not engaged. If I were to be wrong about that I would have accepted the claimants’ submission that the application was made promptly as it was made as soon as it was apparent that there was an issue with the Extension Orders and any earlier application would have been premature.
Even if the jurisdiction were engaged, in all the circumstances of this case as I have described above, I would not be minded to exercise my discretion under 7.6(3) to enable the claimants to escape the consequences of the Extension Orders being set aside.
Similarly, for the claimants to be able to resort to CPR 6.15 or 6.16 as a means of extricating themselves from the service difficulty they find themselves in would subvert CPR 7.6(3).
I will dismiss the February 2025 Extension Application and the Alternative Service Application against the second defendant.
- Heading
- The Applications
- ( the Set Aside Application )
- The Set Aside Application
- The Parties and the Claims
- The Law
- Applications For Extensions Without Notice
- Limitation
- The Second Defendant’s Submissions
- Full and frank disclosure
- No exceptional circumstances or good reasons
- The Claimant’s Submissions
- Will a limitation defence be prejudiced by the Extensions?
- Reasonable steps to serve within time
- Alleged non-disclosure - Limitation
- Alleged Non-Disclosure - Unpaid Costs
- Alleged Non-Disclosure - Delays in service
- Injustice to the Cs
- Discussion and Conclusions on the Set Aside Application
- CPR rules 7.6(3), 6.16 and 6.15
- Claimants’ Submissions
- Second Defendant’s Submissions
- Conclusions