Galliford Try Construction Limited v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited & Ors

Galliford Try Construction Limited v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited & Ors

There was no express or implied agreement to extend the stay of proceedings; even if there had been, only a court order can impose a stay. The Claimant failed to serve the claim form within the prescribed period and did not satisfy the conditions of CPR 7.6(3). The court has no jurisdiction to grant a retrospective extension of time for service or to extend the stay, and the applications must be refused.

Parties
Claimant: Galliford Try Construction Limited; First Defendant: Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited; Third Defendant: Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios LLP; Fourth Defendant: Northfield Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Construction Dispute / Ruling on Applications for Extension of Stay and Time for Service
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Stay, Service of Claim Form, Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Relief From Sanctions, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Construction Law Extension of Stay Service of Claim Form Pre Action Protocol Compliance Relief From Sanctions Limitation Period

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Galliford Try Construction Limited

Claimant

Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited

Second Defendant

Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios LLP

Third Defendant

Northfield Construction Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction Dispute / Ruling on Applications for Extension of Stay and Time for Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties agreed to extend the stay of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant retrospective extension of stay
  3. 3 Whether the court can extend time for service of claim form after expiry

Ratio Decidendi

There was no express or implied agreement to extend the stay of proceedings; even if there had been, only a court order can impose a stay. The Claimant failed to serve the claim form within the prescribed period and did not satisfy the conditions of CPR 7.6(3). The court has no jurisdiction to grant a retrospective extension of time for service or to extend the stay, and the applications must be refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Both applications for extension of stay and time for service are refused.
  • No retrospective extension of stay or time for service granted.