The time for service of a claim form

The general rule is that a claim form must be served within four months of the date of issue. This is the date of the court's seal which is also the relevant date for determining whether it has been issued within the limitation period. If the claim form is to be served out of the jurisdiction, then the period for service is six months.

In the new spirit of making speedy progress and conducting litigation efficiently, it might be thought that four or six months is plenty of time in which to serve a claim and that one would not have issued proceedings if one did not intend to get on with it. Sometimes, however, the claim form is not served promptly. There may be good reasons—such as that the defendant is proving evasive and cannot be found, or because negotiations have suddenly reached a peak of activity and it might be possible to settle the case without proceedings being progressed; or it may be due to sloppiness.

The court has the power to extend the four or six months for service, but if this is not done, the claim form's validity lapses at the expiry date. If the case is still within the limitation period, that causes no particular difficulty, although the court fee on issue will be lost. One can simply reissue proceedings in the same form. If, however, the four or six months also span the end of the limitation period so that the claim is now out of time, then in principle the claimant has lost his opportunity to bring his case and will presumably turn his attention to pursuing his solicitors under their negligence insurance.

If the claim form cannot be served in time then an application to extend the period should be made while the claim form is still valid; if the time has already expired the court may still extend the time for service, but may only do so by virtue of CPR, r. 7.6(3), if:

(a) the court has been unable to serve the claim form;

(b) the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form, but has been unable to do so; or

An application for an order to extend the time of service must be supported by evidence. It may be made without notice to the potential defendant (indeed this will usually be the case because the defendant has not yet been served with the claim form and is not yet involved).

Although, the CPR are meant to be a 'clean new start' and case law from the previous rules may be of little assistance for the future, it is fair to say that the courts under the preceding rules required a very high standard of diligence to be shown before they would extend the 'life' of a claim form. They would want to be shown that proper efforts had been made to locate and serve the defendant early in the life of the form and that the claimant's solicitors had not left things until late in the four months before finding themselves in difficulties. Generally speaking, extension would be allowed only where the defendant was proving evasive despite all reasonable efforts being shown.

Indications are that, whilst judges should not need to interpret the CPR with regard to the weight of authorities accumulated under the old rules, they will be similarly demanding. See, for example, Vinos v Marks and Spencer (2000) Independent, 17 July 2000 and Smith v Probyn (2000) The Times, 29 March 2000. It will therefore be important for someone applying to extend the period to demonstrate by written evidence, with a chronology attached, just what has been done where, when and how to attempt to serve the claim form promptly after its issue.

[U1]давать возможность, право

[U2]подобно, так же

[U3]причиняющий беспокойство, неудобный, стесняющий, мешающий

[U4]голословное утверждение

[U5]несовместимый, несообразный

[U6]принуждение, насилие

[U7]удобный, подходящий; пригодный

[U8]помещать, размещать, располагать, распределять, расставлять

[U9]назначать; распределять

[U10]будто бы, якобы

[U11]спотыкаться, падать

[U12]потёртый, потрёпанный, поношенный, старый