Aldridge v Edwards [2000] EWCA Civ 78 (16 March 2000)

Aldridge v Edwards [2000] EWCA Civ 78 (16 March 2000)

A stay under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) does not prevent time from running for service of summons under CCR Order 7 Rule 20; the claimant's solicitors failed to apply for a variation of the stay or valid extension, rendering service invalid and requiring restoration of the district judge's order.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 78
Parties
Claimant: Wendy Aldridge; Defendant: Hubert Edwards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Effect of Stay Orders, County Court Rules, Personal Injury Claims
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Extension of Time for Service Effect of Stay Orders County Court Rules Personal Injury Claims

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Aldridge

Claimant

Hubert Edwards

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a stay under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) prevent time from running for service of summons under CCR Order 7 Rule 20?
  2. 2 Was the extension of time for service validly granted?
  3. 3 Should the district judge's order setting aside service be restored?

Ratio Decidendi

A stay under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) does not prevent time from running for service of summons under CCR Order 7 Rule 20; the claimant's solicitors failed to apply for a variation of the stay or valid extension, rendering service invalid and requiring restoration of the district judge's order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • district judge's order restored
  • claimant's summons set aside