American Leisure Group Ltd v Garrard & Ors [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch) (26 June 2014)

American Leisure Group Ltd v Garrard & Ors [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch) (26 June 2014)

Service of the claim form on the first defendant was not valid as it was not effected within the four-month period required for service within the jurisdiction under CPR 7.5(1), and the claimant failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant's correct address. The requirements for extension of time under CPR 7.6(3) were not met, and CPR 6.15 could not be used to validate late service or extend time.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: American Leisure Group Limited; First Defendant: Sir David Eardley Garrard; Second Defendant: Malcolm John Wright; Third Defendant: Frederick Wendell Pauzar; Fourth Defendant: Roger Charles Maddock; Fifth Defendant: Rupert Roderick Faure Walker; Sixth Defendant: David Champion Mace; Seventh Defendant: Ron Leventhal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Declaration of Invalid Service and Extension of Time for Service
Outcome
Claimant's application dismissed; declaration of invalid service granted to first defendant.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Service of Process Extension of Time Jurisdiction 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

American Leisure Group Limited

Claimant

Sir David Eardley Garrard

First Defendant

Malcolm John Wright

Second Defendant

Frederick Wendell Pauzar

Third Defendant

Roger Charles Maddock

Fourth Defendant

Rupert Roderick Faure Walker

Fifth Defendant

David Champion Mace

Sixth Defendant

Ron Leventhal

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Declaration of Invalid Service and Extension of Time for Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form on the first defendant was valid under CPR 7.5
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for service under CPR 7.6(3)
  3. 3 Whether steps taken constituted good service under CPR 6.15

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the claim form on the first defendant was not valid as it was not effected within the four-month period required for service within the jurisdiction under CPR 7.5(1), and the claimant failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant's correct address. The requirements for extension of time under CPR 7.6(3) were not met, and CPR 6.15 could not be used to validate late service or extend time.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application dismissed; declaration of invalid service granted to first defendant.

Orders

  • Declaration that purported service of the claim form and particulars of claim on the first defendant in January 2014 was not valid.
  • Claimant's application for extension of time for service dismissed.