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 application to challenge late service of the claim form and particulars of claim should have been made under CPR Part 11, but the effect of the applications made was to constitute such an application, and the Master was entitled to grant an extension of time and order a permanent stay. The refusal to extend time for service was correct under the strict regime of CPR 7.6(3), and the certification of the claimant's applications as totally without merit was justified.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 39 (QB)
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 Against Order for Permanent Stay of Libel Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Jurisdictional Challenge, Libel, Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)
Civil Procedure Media Law Extension of Time for Service Jurisdictional Challenge Libel Permanent Stay of Proceedings Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)

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 Against Order for Permanent Stay of Libel 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 the Master 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) rather than CPR Part 11

Ratio Decidendi

The application to challenge late service of the claim form and particulars of claim should have been made under CPR Part 11, but the effect of the applications made was to constitute such an application, and the Master was entitled to grant an extension of time and order a permanent stay. The refusal to extend time for service was correct under the strict regime of CPR 7.6(3), and the certification of the claimant's applications as totally without merit was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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