Mersey Docks Property Holdings & Ors v Kilgour [2004] EWHC 1638 (TCC) (25 June 2004)

Mersey Docks Property Holdings & Ors v Kilgour [2004] EWHC 1638 (TCC) (25 June 2004)

The claimants failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain and serve the claim form at the defendant's actual place of business, and knowledge of the correct address held by the assignors was imputed to the claimants. The requirements for an extension of time under CPR 7.6(3) were not satisfied as the claimants did not act promptly or reasonably. Therefore, service was not valid and no extension of time was granted.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1638 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mersey Docks Property Holdings Ltd.; Claimant: Spade Lane Cool Stores Ltd. (in liquidation); Claimant: Sheerness Cool Stores Ltd.; Fourth Defendant: Michael Kilgour
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Preliminary Issue on Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Claimants did not validly serve the claim form on the fourth defendant; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Limitation Periods, Assignment of Claims, Extension of Time for Service
Civil Procedure Service of Process Limitation Periods Assignment of Claims Extension of Time for Service

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mersey Docks Property Holdings Ltd.

Claimant

Spade Lane Cool Stores Ltd. (in liquidation)

Claimant

Sheerness Cool Stores Ltd.

Claimant

Michael Kilgour

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Preliminary Issue on Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of 'last known place of business' under CPR Part 6.5(6)?
  2. 2 Were the claimants required to take further steps to ascertain the defendant's current business address?
  3. 3 Is knowledge of the assignor imputed to the assignee for service purposes?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain and serve the claim form at the defendant's actual place of business, and knowledge of the correct address held by the assignors was imputed to the claimants. The requirements for an extension of time under CPR 7.6(3) were not satisfied as the claimants did not act promptly or reasonably. Therefore, service was not valid and no extension of time was granted.

Court Disposition

Claimants did not validly serve the claim form on the fourth defendant; application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that service on the fourth defendant was not valid under CPR Part 6.5.
  • No extension of time for service granted.