Hoddinott & Ors v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1203 (21 November 2007)

Hoddinott & Ors v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1203 (21 November 2007)

CPR 11 is engaged in this context and, as the defendant did not make an application under CPR 11(1) within 14 days after acknowledgment of service, it is treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction to try the claim. Additionally, the district judge erred in setting aside the extension of time, as the claim was not time-barred and the defendant had notice of the claim form within the original period, justifying the exercise of discretion to allow the extension despite no good reason for the delay.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 1203
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 (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 7.5, 7.6, 11, Limitation Act 1980, Discretion to Set Aside Orders, Service of Claim Form
Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 7.5, 7.6, 11 Limitation Act 1980 Discretion to Set Aside Orders 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 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 (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

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 a defendant must make an application under CPR 11(1) after filing acknowledgment of service to contest jurisdiction or the court's exercise of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the district judge's exercise of discretion under CPR 7.6(1) was wrong in setting aside the extension of time for service

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 11 is engaged in this context and, as the defendant did not make an application under CPR 11(1) within 14 days after acknowledgment of service, it is treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction to try the claim. Additionally, the district judge erred in setting aside the extension of time, as the claim was not time-barred and the defendant had notice of the claim form within the original period, justifying the exercise of discretion to allow the extension despite no good reason for the delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of District Judge Daniel set aside
  • Order granting extension of time for service of the claim form until 22 November 2006 restored