Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3002 (TCC) (14 November 2025)

Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3002 (TCC) (14 November 2025)

There was no express or implied agreement between the parties to extend the stay or time for service of the claim form. Even if there had been, such an agreement would not be effective without a court order. The court has no jurisdiction to grant a retrospective extension of time for service of the claim form unless the strict conditions of CPR 7.6(3) are satisfied, which they were not. General powers under CPR 3.9 or 3.10 cannot be used to circumvent these requirements.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3002 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Galliford Try Construction Limited; First Defendant: Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited; Third Defendant: Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios LLP; Fourth Defendant: Northfield Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Technology and Construction Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Extension of Stay and Time for Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Both applications refused for want of jurisdiction and/or discretion.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form, Stay of Proceedings, Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Limitation Periods, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Construction Law Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form Stay of Proceedings Pre Action Protocol Compliance Limitation Periods 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Galliford Try Construction Limited

Claimant

Arcadis Consulting (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited

Second Defendant

Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios LLP

Third Defendant

Northfield Construction Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Technology and Construction Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Extension of Stay and Time for Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties agreed to extend the stay of proceedings and/or time for service of the claim form
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a retrospective extension of the stay or time for service under CPR 7.6(3)
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions or general powers under CPR 3.9 or 3.10 can be used to circumvent CPR 7.6(3)

Ratio Decidendi

There was no express or implied agreement between the parties to extend the stay or time for service of the claim form. Even if there had been, such an agreement would not be effective without a court order. The court has no jurisdiction to grant a retrospective extension of time for service of the claim form unless the strict conditions of CPR 7.6(3) are satisfied, which they were not. General powers under CPR 3.9 or 3.10 cannot be used to circumvent these requirements.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused for want of jurisdiction and/or discretion.