Ministry of Defence v Blythe [2013] EWHC 1422 (QB) (02 May 2013)

Ministry of Defence v Blythe [2013] EWHC 1422 (QB) (02 May 2013)

The court held that the relevant order expressly permitted application to extend the 20-year period, that the Civil Procedure Rules applied to the application as a new step in existing proceedings, and that CPR 3.1.2(a) gave the court discretion to extend time even after expiry. The relevant part of the order was procedural, not substantive, and the Master was entitled to exercise discretion to extend time. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1422 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Ministry of Defence; Defendant: Blythe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Provisional Damages, Extension of Time, Consent Orders, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Provisional Damages Extension of Time Consent Orders Case Management Discretion

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ministry of Defence

Claimant

Blythe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend time for application for further damages after expiry of a 20-year period in a provisional damages order made under the old Rules of the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the consent order constituted a contract precluding such extension
  3. 3 Whether the Civil Procedure Rules permit extension of time in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the relevant order expressly permitted application to extend the 20-year period, that the Civil Procedure Rules applied to the application as a new step in existing proceedings, and that CPR 3.1.2(a) gave the court discretion to extend time even after expiry. The relevant part of the order was procedural, not substantive, and the Master was entitled to exercise discretion to extend time. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Master's order extending time for application for further damages stands.