Binning Bros Ltd v Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles (A Firm) [1997] EWCA Civ 2688 (11th November, 1997)

Binning Bros Ltd v Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles (A Firm) [1997] EWCA Civ 2688 (11th November, 1997)

No good ground was established for not serving the writ within the original period; the reasons advanced (investigation, funding, costs, desire to serve statement of claim with writ) were insufficient. The requirement for good reason applies regardless of whether the claim is statute-barred. The defendants did not waive their right to challenge the extension, as their correspondence did not amount to a clear waiver.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 2688
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Binning Bros Limited (in liquidation); Defendant/respondent: Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Validity of Writ, Service of Process, Limitation Periods, Waiver of Procedural Rights
Civil Procedure Insolvency Extension of Validity of Writ Service of Process Limitation Periods Waiver of Procedural Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binning Bros Limited (in liquidation)

Plaintiff/appellant

Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles (a firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason for not serving the writ within the original period of validity and for extending the validity of the writ under Ord. 6 r. 8 (2)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant waived the right to challenge the extension of the writ's validity

Ratio Decidendi

No good ground was established for not serving the writ within the original period; the reasons advanced (investigation, funding, costs, desire to serve statement of claim with writ) were insufficient. The requirement for good reason applies regardless of whether the claim is statute-barred. The defendants did not waive their right to challenge the extension, as their correspondence did not amount to a clear waiver.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused