Joe Macari Servicing Ltd v Chequered Flag International Inc [2021] EWHC 3175 (QB) (25 November 2021)

Joe Macari Servicing Ltd v Chequered Flag International Inc [2021] EWHC 3175 (QB) (25 November 2021)

The defendant failed to apply under CPR 11 within the required 14 days after acknowledgment of service and is therefore deemed to have accepted the court's jurisdiction. Although the defendant sought relief from sanctions and an extension of time, the court found no sufficient justification to grant such relief. The claimant did not satisfy the strict requirements of CPR 7.6(3) for an extension of time for service, as not all reasonable steps were taken within the prescribed period and the application was not made promptly. The court also found no good reason to validate alternative service under CPR 6.15. Accordingly, the applications for extension of time and validation of service are...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3175 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Joe Macari Servicing Limited; Defendant: Chequered Flag International Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/misrepresentation) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Procedural Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside service dismissed; claimant's applications for extension of time and validation of service refused.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Relief From Sanctions, Jurisdiction, Limitation, Hague Convention
Civil Procedure Private International Law Service of Claim Form Extension of Time Relief From Sanctions Jurisdiction Limitation Hague Convention

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe Macari Servicing Limited

Claimant

Chequered Flag International Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/misrepresentation) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Procedural Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction given alleged late service of the claim form
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to relief from sanctions for late application under CPR 11
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to an extension of time for service of the claim form under CPR 7.6(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to apply under CPR 11 within the required 14 days after acknowledgment of service and is therefore deemed to have accepted the court's jurisdiction. Although the defendant sought relief from sanctions and an extension of time, the court found no sufficient justification to grant such relief. The claimant did not satisfy the strict requirements of CPR 7.6(3) for an extension of time for service, as not all reasonable steps were taken within the prescribed period and the application was not made promptly. The court also found no good reason to validate alternative service under CPR 6.15. Accordingly, the applications for extension of time and validation of service are...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside service dismissed; claimant's applications for extension of time and validation of service refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's application for relief from sanctions and extension of time under CPR 11 refused.
  • Claimant's application for extension of time for service under CPR 7.6(3) refused.