Higgins & Ors v ERC Accountants & Business Advisers Ltd

Higgins & Ors v ERC Accountants & Business Advisers Ltd

The Claim Form was not validly served within the period of its validity as extended by consent orders. The claimants failed to comply with the requirements for service under the Civil Procedure Rules, did not establish a good reason for retrospective validation under CPR r.6.15, nor exceptional circumstances under CPR r.6.16, and did not take all reasonable steps to serve within time as required by CPR r.7.6(3).

Parties
Claimant: Patrick Philip Joseph Higgins; Claimant: Angela Sarita Elsa Higgins; Claimant: Christopher McKeating; Claimant: Paul Brennan; Claimant: C&P Apothecaries Limited; Claimant: Higgins Pharmacy Limited; Claimant: PH Mechanical Services Limited; Defendant: ERC Accountants & Business Advisers Limited; Defendant: Granite Tax Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Claim struck out; applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Extension of Time, Limitation of Actions, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Service of Process Extension of Time Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Rules

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Philip Joseph Higgins

Claimant

Angela Sarita Elsa Higgins

Claimant

Christopher McKeating

Claimant

Paul Brennan

Claimant

C&P Apothecaries Limited

Claimant

Higgins Pharmacy Limited

Claimant

PH Mechanical Services Limited

Claimant

ERC Accountants & Business Advisers Limited

Defendant

Granite Tax Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claim Form was validly served within the required period
  2. 2 Whether the court should retrospectively validate service under CPR r.6.15 or dispense with service under CPR r.6.16
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for service under CPR r.7.6

Ratio Decidendi

The Claim Form was not validly served within the period of its validity as extended by consent orders. The claimants failed to comply with the requirements for service under the Civil Procedure Rules, did not establish a good reason for retrospective validation under CPR r.6.15, nor exceptional circumstances under CPR r.6.16, and did not take all reasonable steps to serve within time as required by CPR r.7.6(3).

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; applications dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is struck out and/or a declaration is made that the Claim Form was not served within its period of validity as extended by the consent orders.
  • The application under CPR r.7.6 is dismissed.