KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

In Hoddinott, the claimants made a without notice application to extend the four-month time limit for service of the claim form, stating they were unable to particularise their claim fully while awaiting expert evidence. The district judge granted the application and extended time for service. The claimants informed the defendant of the claim form and the extension. After the original four-month time limit had expired, but before being served with the claim form, the defendant issued an application to set aside the order extending time for service. Before that application was heard, the claimant served the claim form and particulars of claim on the defendant. The defendant's solicitors filed an acknowledgement of service, without ticking the box indicating that the defendant intended to contest jurisdiction. Subsequently, the defendant's application to set aside the extension was heard at first instance. The claim was struck out as having been served out of time. The claimants appealed on the basis that after the application to set aside the extension of time, the defendant acknowledged service without opposing jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that under CPR 11(5), if a defendant files an acknowledgment of service and does not make an application disputing the court's jurisdiction within 14 days thereafter, the defendant is to be treated as accepting the court’s jurisdiction to try the claim. The court rejected the defendant's argument that its application to set aside the order extending time for service had rendered an application under Part 11 unnecessary. The language is clear. An application to set aside an order extending service is not an application under CPR 11, nor an application made within 14 days after filing the acknowledgment of service. On the facts, this conclusion was reinforced by the defendant not indicating on the acknowledgement of service that it intended to dispute jurisdiction.