Carnegie v Drury

Carnegie v Drury

The claimant failed to take all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the four-month period, having made no attempt until the last day and failing to make timely inquiries or applications. The claimant also failed to act promptly in making the application for an extension. The requirements of CPR 7.6(3)(b) and (c) were not satisfied, and thus the court had no discretion to grant a retrospective extension of time for service.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Douglas Carnegie; Respondent: Mr Stephen Drury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; extension of time set aside; service on Mr Carnegie declared invalid; costs awarded to Mr Carnegie, with interim payment ordered.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Service of Claim Form, Retrospective Extension, Reasonable Steps for Service, Promptness in Applications
Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Service Service of Claim Form Retrospective Extension Reasonable Steps for Service Promptness in Applications

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Douglas Carnegie

Appellant

Mr Stephen Drury

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the time allowed under CPR 7.6(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant acted promptly in making the application for an extension under CPR 7.6(3)(c)
  3. 3 Whether the judge exercised discretion correctly in granting a retrospective extension of time for service

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to take all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the four-month period, having made no attempt until the last day and failing to make timely inquiries or applications. The claimant also failed to act promptly in making the application for an extension. The requirements of CPR 7.6(3)(b) and (c) were not satisfied, and thus the court had no discretion to grant a retrospective extension of time for service.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; extension of time set aside; service on Mr Carnegie declared invalid; costs awarded to Mr Carnegie, with interim payment ordered.

Orders

  • Extension of time for service granted by Eady J set aside.
  • Service effected under the judge’s order declared invalid.