Caine v Advertiser And Times Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 39 (QB) (14 January 2019)

Caine v Advertiser And Times Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 39 (QB) (14 January 2019)

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the relevant regime for extension of time for service was CPR Part 7.6(3); (2) Master Yoxall was right to refuse an extension of time for serving the claim form and particulars of claim; (3) the challenge to late service should have been made under CPR Part 11; (4) the effect of the applications made was to constitute a valid application under CPR Part 11, and Master Yoxall was entitled to grant an extension of time and order a permanent stay; (5) the claimant's applications dated 4 July 2018 were totally without merit.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 39
Parties
Claimant and Appellant: John Caine; Defendant and Respondent: Advertiser and Times Limited; Defendant and Respondent: Edward Curry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Yoxall Permanently Staying Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Jurisdictional Challenge, Libel, Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Media Law Extension of Time for Service Jurisdictional Challenge Libel Permanent Stay of Proceedings Relief From Sanctions

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Caine

Claimant and Appellant

Advertiser and Times Limited

Defendant and Respondent

Edward Curry

Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Yoxall Permanently Staying Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the regime for extension of time for service of the claim form is governed by CPR Part 7.6(3)
  2. 2 Whether Master Yoxall was wrong to refuse an extension of time to serve the claim form and particulars of claim
  3. 3 Whether the defendants chose the wrong procedural route by applying to strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) instead of CPR Part 11

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the relevant regime for extension of time for service was CPR Part 7.6(3); (2) Master Yoxall was right to refuse an extension of time for serving the claim form and particulars of claim; (3) the challenge to late service should have been made under CPR Part 11; (4) the effect of the applications made was to constitute a valid application under CPR Part 11, and Master Yoxall was entitled to grant an extension of time and order a permanent stay; (5) the claimant's applications dated 4 July 2018 were totally without merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permanent stay of proceedings maintained
  • Applications dated 4 July 2018 certified as totally without merit