Bethell Construction Ltd & Anor v Deloitte & Touche [2010] EWHC 3664 (Ch) (16 December 2010)

Bethell Construction Ltd & Anor v Deloitte & Touche [2010] EWHC 3664 (Ch) (16 December 2010)

The claim form was not served within the period of its validity as extended by agreement; the defendants' solicitors' letter of 22 October 2010 validly determined the extension and required service within 14 days, which was not complied with. There was no implied service, estoppel, or good reason to authorise retrospective service under CPR 6.15, nor were there exceptional circumstances to dispense with service under CPR 6.16. The claim is therefore struck out for want of service.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3664 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bethell Construction Limited and another; Defendant: Deloitte & Touche
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Application to Treat Claim Form as Validly Served or Dispense With Service; Cross Application for Declaration of Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Non Service
Outcome
Claim dismissed for want of service of the claim form within the valid period.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Estoppel, CPR 6.15, CPR 6.16, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Service of Claim Form Extension of Time Estoppel CPR 6.15 CPR 6.16 Limitation of Actions

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bethell Construction Limited and another

Claimant

Deloitte & Touche

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Application to Treat Claim Form as Validly Served or Dispense With Service; Cross Application for Declaration of Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Non Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim form was validly served within the extended period agreed by the parties
  2. 2 Whether the court should retrospectively authorise service under CPR 6.15
  3. 3 Whether the court should dispense with service under CPR 6.16

Ratio Decidendi

The claim form was not served within the period of its validity as extended by agreement; the defendants' solicitors' letter of 22 October 2010 validly determined the extension and required service within 14 days, which was not complied with. There was no implied service, estoppel, or good reason to authorise retrospective service under CPR 6.15, nor were there exceptional circumstances to dispense with service under CPR 6.16. The claim is therefore struck out for want of service.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for want of service of the claim form within the valid period.

Orders

  • Claimants' application to treat claim form as served or dispense with service is refused.
  • Defendants' application for declaration of lack of jurisdiction is granted.