Thomas v The Home Office

Thomas v The Home Office

The Court held that while parties may agree to extend the time for service of a claim form under CPR r. 2.11, such agreement must be in writing. None of the extensions in this case satisfied the requirement for a written agreement. Even if they had, the claim form was still served out of time. Estoppel cannot override the express requirement for a written agreement.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Ian Thomas; Respondent: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Claim Form, Written Agreement Under CPR, Estoppel, Case Management
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Service of Claim Form Written Agreement Under CPR Estoppel Case Management

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ian Thomas

Appellant

The Home Office

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can parties agree an extension of time for service of a claim form outside the period specified in CPR r. 7.5?
  2. 2 Must such agreement be in writing, and what form must it take?
  3. 3 Can estoppel be invoked to rely on an oral agreement for extension?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while parties may agree to extend the time for service of a claim form under CPR r. 2.11, such agreement must be in writing. None of the extensions in this case satisfied the requirement for a written agreement. Even if they had, the claim form was still served out of time. Estoppel cannot override the express requirement for a written agreement.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.