Standish & Anor v Hill & Anor [2025] EWHC 2954 (Ch) (11 November 2025)

Standish & Anor v Hill & Anor [2025] EWHC 2954 (Ch) (11 November 2025)

Mr. Hill's failure to apply under CPR 11(1) within 14 days after acknowledgment of service constitutes acceptance of the court's jurisdiction. Substituted service in Florida was valid. Even if jurisdiction could be challenged, the application to set aside the extension of time would fail as no limitation defence arises and the overriding objective supports extension.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2954 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Standish; Claimant/respondent: Michael Leeds; Defendant/applicant: Daniel Walter Hill; Defendant/applicant: Anne Hill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—challenge to Service and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Relief From Sanctions, Limitation Periods, Waiver of Jurisdiction, Substituted Service
Civil Procedure Insolvency Service of Process Jurisdiction Relief From Sanctions Limitation Periods Waiver of Jurisdiction Substituted 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 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Standish

Claimant/respondent

Michael Leeds

Claimant/respondent

Daniel Walter Hill

Defendant/applicant

Anne Hill

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—challenge to Service and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Hill was properly served with the claim form
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Hill can challenge the court's jurisdiction after filing acknowledgment of service
  3. 3 Whether substituted service in Florida was valid

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Hill's failure to apply under CPR 11(1) within 14 days after acknowledgment of service constitutes acceptance of the court's jurisdiction. Substituted service in Florida was valid. Even if jurisdiction could be challenged, the application to set aside the extension of time would fail as no limitation defence arises and the overriding objective supports extension.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • March application dismissed
  • April application dismissed