Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 60 (03 February 2005)

Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 60 (03 February 2005)

Permission for a second appeal was refused because the grounds did not raise an important new point of principle or practice, nor was there any other compelling reason; the defendant had waived its right to challenge service by failing to contest jurisdiction within the time required by CPR 11(5).

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 60
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Uphill (Widow and Administrator of the Estate of Malcolm Ernest Uphill); Defendant (appellant): BRB (Residuary) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form, Waiver of Right to Challenge Service, Second Appeals Under CPR 52.13, Dispensing With Service of Claim Form
Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form Waiver of Right to Challenge Service Second Appeals Under CPR 52.13 Dispensing With Service of Claim Form

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uphill (Widow and Administrator of the Estate of Malcolm Ernest Uphill)

Claimant (respondent)

BRB (Residuary) Ltd.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for a second appeal under CPR 52.13(2)
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts erred in extending time for service of the claim form
  3. 3 Whether the defendant waived the right to challenge validity of service

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for a second appeal was refused because the grounds did not raise an important new point of principle or practice, nor was there any other compelling reason; the defendant had waived its right to challenge service by failing to contest jurisdiction within the time required by CPR 11(5).

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused