Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 121 (24 January 2001)

The court has no power under CPR 3.10 or 6.8 to retrospectively deem service on a defendant's insurer as good service on the defendant when no application for alternative service was made and no order was granted; CPR 6.8 operates prospectively only.

Citation: [2001] EWCA Civ 121
Parties: Appellant/claimant: Peter Charles Elmes; Respondent/defendant: Hygrade Food Products PLC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 January 2001
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Second Tier Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Service of Process, Civil Procedure Rules, Relief From Sanctions, Alternative Service, Limitation Period

Civil Procedure Service of Process Civil Procedure Rules Relief From Sanctions Alternative Service Limitation Period

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2

Parties

Peter Charles Elmes

Appellant/claimant

Hygrade Food Products PLC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Tier Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the court has power to deem service on a defendant's insurer as good service on the defendant under CPR 3.10 and 6.8 when the claim form was served in time but on the wrong party
2 Whether CPR 6.8 can be applied retrospectively to cure procedural errors in service

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs to be agreed or subject to detailed assessment if not agreed
Application for permission to appeal to House of Lords refused