Bethell Construction Ltd & Anor v Deloitte & Touche

Bethell Construction Ltd & Anor v Deloitte & Touche

The claim form was not validly served within the period of its validity as extended by agreement. The defendants' solicitors' letter of 22 October 2010 effectively determined the extension of time for service, requiring service within 14 days, which was not complied with. There was no implied service, estoppel, or good reason to authorise alternative service or dispense with service. The claim is now statute barred and the court has no jurisdiction to hear it.

Parties
Claimant: Bethell Construction Limited and another; Defendant: Deloitte & Touche
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Ruling on Applications Regarding Service of Claim Form and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim struck out as statute barred; court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Estoppel, CPR 6.15, CPR 6.16, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Service of Claim Form Extension of Time Estoppel CPR 6.15 CPR 6.16 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bethell Construction Limited and another

Claimant

Deloitte & Touche

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Ruling on Applications Regarding Service of Claim Form and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim form was validly served within the extended time agreed by the parties
  2. 2 Whether the court should authorise alternative service or dispense with service under CPR 6.15 or 6.16
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are estopped from denying service

Ratio Decidendi

The claim form was not validly served within the period of its validity as extended by agreement. The defendants' solicitors' letter of 22 October 2010 effectively determined the extension of time for service, requiring service within 14 days, which was not complied with. There was no implied service, estoppel, or good reason to authorise alternative service or dispense with service. The claim is now statute barred and the court has no jurisdiction to hear it.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as statute barred; court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claim form was not served in time.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants from 19 September 2007 onwards, subject to further submissions on application costs.