Caine v Advertiser And Times Ltd & Anor

Caine v Advertiser And Times Ltd & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the Master was correct to refuse an extension of time for service under CPR Part 7.6(3), the challenge to late service should have been made under CPR Part 11, the applications made by the defendants were sufficient to constitute an application under CPR Part 11 with an extension of time properly granted, and the certification of certain applications as totally without merit was justified.

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
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Permanent Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Jurisdictional Challenge, Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Service Jurisdictional Challenge 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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Permanent Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the regime for extension of time for service of the claim form is contained in 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 appeal was dismissed because the Master was correct to refuse an extension of time for service under CPR Part 7.6(3), the challenge to late service should have been made under CPR Part 11, the applications made by the defendants were sufficient to constitute an application under CPR Part 11 with an extension of time properly granted, and the certification of certain 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