Hoddinott & Ors v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd

Hoddinott & Ors v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd

The appeal was allowed because (1) by operation of CPR 11(5), the defendant was treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction to try the claim by failing to make an application under CPR 11(1) within 14 days after acknowledgment of service, and (2) the district judge should not have set aside the order granting an extension of time for service, given the unusual combination of the claim not being time-barred and the defendant having received a copy of the claim form within the service period.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Gerrard Richard Hoddinott; Appellant/claimant: Geoffrey Fred Hoddinott; Appellant/claimant: R G Hoddinott Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Persimmon Homes (Wessex) LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Service of Claim Form, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Jurisdiction, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Service Service of Claim Form Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Jurisdiction 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerrard Richard Hoddinott

Appellant/claimant

Geoffrey Fred Hoddinott

Appellant/claimant

R G Hoddinott Ltd

Appellant/claimant

Persimmon Homes (Wessex) LTD

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 11 is engaged in applications to set aside extensions of time for service of claim form
  2. 2 Whether an application to set aside an order extending time for service renders an application under CPR 11(1) unnecessary
  3. 3 Whether the district judge's exercise of discretion under CPR 7.6(1) was wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because (1) by operation of CPR 11(5), the defendant was treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction to try the claim by failing to make an application under CPR 11(1) within 14 days after acknowledgment of service, and (2) the district judge should not have set aside the order granting an extension of time for service, given the unusual combination of the claim not being time-barred and the defendant having received a copy of the claim form within the service period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of District Judge Daniel set aside
  • Order granting extension of time for service of claim form reinstated