Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor S.A [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC) (13 February 2026)

Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor S.A [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC) (13 February 2026)

The claimant failed to provide a good reason for extending time for service of the claim form, particularly as the reasons advanced related to service of particulars of claim rather than the claim form itself. The claimant also failed to disclose to the court that the extension would take service beyond the primary limitation period, depriving the defendant of a limitation defence. This material non-disclosure, combined with the lack of justification for the extension, required the extension to be set aside and the court to declare it had no jurisdiction.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 232 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration); Defendant: Accor S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Extension of Time for Service and for Declaration of No Jurisdiction / Post Service, Pre Trial, Application Hearing
Outcome
Defendant's application allowed; extension of time set aside; declaration of no jurisdiction granted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Material Non Disclosure, Jurisdictional Challenge
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Extension of Time for Service Service Out of Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Material Non Disclosure Jurisdictional Challenge

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

Parties

Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration)

Claimant

Accor S.A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Extension of Time for Service and for Declaration of No Jurisdiction / Post Service, Pre Trial, Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of time for service of the claim form should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the claim
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant regarding limitation issues

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide a good reason for extending time for service of the claim form, particularly as the reasons advanced related to service of particulars of claim rather than the claim form itself. The claimant also failed to disclose to the court that the extension would take service beyond the primary limitation period, depriving the defendant of a limitation defence. This material non-disclosure, combined with the lack of justification for the extension, required the extension to be set aside and the court to declare it had no jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application allowed; extension of time set aside; declaration of no jurisdiction granted.

Orders

  • The extension of time for service of the claim form granted by Waksman J is set aside.
  • The claim form was served out of time.