Foran v Secret Surgery Ltd & Ors

Foran v Secret Surgery Ltd & Ors

The evidence provided in support of the application for extension of time was insufficient to demonstrate a good reason for the delay in serving the claim form; the Master failed to properly consider the expiry of the limitation period and the resulting loss of the Defendants’ limitation defence. The decision to grant the extension was therefore wrong and cannot stand.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michelle Foran; Defendant/appellant: Secret Surgery Limited; Defendant/appellant: Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen Spolka Akcyjna; Defendant/appellant: Wojciech Waclawowicz; Defendant/appellant: EMC Instytut Medyczny Spolka Akcyjna
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (procedural Extension in Clinical Negligence) / Appeal From Master’s Order Extending Time for Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master’s order extending time for service of claim form set aside.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form, Limitation Period, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Discretion Under CPR 7.6(2)
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Extension of Time for Service of Claim Form Limitation Period Service Out of Jurisdiction Discretion Under CPR 7.6(2)

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Foran

Claimant/respondent

Secret Surgery Limited

Defendant/appellant

Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen Spolka Akcyjna

Defendant/appellant

Wojciech Waclawowicz

Defendant/appellant

EMC Instytut Medyczny Spolka Akcyjna

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (procedural Extension in Clinical Negligence) / Appeal From Master’s Order Extending Time for Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting an extension of time for service of the claim form under CPR 7.6(2)
  2. 2 Whether a good reason was shown for the delay in service
  3. 3 Whether the expiry of the limitation period and loss of the Defendants’ limitation defence was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence provided in support of the application for extension of time was insufficient to demonstrate a good reason for the delay in serving the claim form; the Master failed to properly consider the expiry of the limitation period and the resulting loss of the Defendants’ limitation defence. The decision to grant the extension was therefore wrong and cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master’s order extending time for service of claim form set aside.