Cranfield & Anor v Bridgegrove Ltd.

Cranfield & Anor v Bridgegrove Ltd.

The court held that 'unable to serve' in CPR 7.6(3)(a) includes cases of court neglect or oversight, allowing for extension of time for service in such circumstances. Dispensing with service under CPR 6.9 is only appropriate in exceptional cases, primarily where the claim form was received by a permitted method within time in pre-Anderton cases. Service on a company at its registered office is valid under section 725(1) of the Companies Act 1985. Service at an individual's last known residence is valid under CPR 6.5(6), even if the defendant no longer resides there.

Parties
Appellant: Cranfield and Another; Respondent: Bridgegrove Limited; Appellant: Claussen; Respondent: Yeates; Appellant: McManus; Respondent: Sharif; Appellant: Murphy; Respondent: Staples UK Limited; Appellant: Smith; Respondent: Hughes and Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Multiple appeals; some allowed, some dismissed, costs orders made accordingly.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Extension of Time, Dispensing With Service, Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Service of Process Extension of Time Dispensing With Service Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules Limitation Periods

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

Parties

Cranfield and Another

Appellant

Bridgegrove Limited

Respondent

Claussen

Appellant

Yeates

Respondent

McManus

Appellant

Sharif

Respondent

Murphy

Appellant

Staples UK Limited

Respondent

Smith

Appellant

Hughes and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of CPR 6.9 and CPR 7.6 regarding dispensing with and extension of time for service of claim forms
  2. 2 Whether court neglect or oversight constitutes being 'unable to serve' under CPR 7.6(3)(a)
  3. 3 Scope of dispensing with service under CPR 6.9 in pre- and post-Anderton cases

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that 'unable to serve' in CPR 7.6(3)(a) includes cases of court neglect or oversight, allowing for extension of time for service in such circumstances. Dispensing with service under CPR 6.9 is only appropriate in exceptional cases, primarily where the claim form was received by a permitted method within time in pre-Anderton cases. Service on a company at its registered office is valid under section 725(1) of the Companies Act 1985. Service at an individual's last known residence is valid under CPR 6.5(6), even if the defendant no longer resides there.

Court Disposition

Multiple appeals; some allowed, some dismissed, costs orders made accordingly.

Orders

  • Cranfield v Bridgegrove: Defendant’s appeal dismissed; defendant to pay costs of the appeal, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Smith v Hughes: Appeal allowed; respondent to pay appellant’s costs here and below, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.