Drummond v Pool Design Ltd [2008] EWHC 1438 (TCC) (13 June 2008)

Drummond v Pool Design Ltd [2008] EWHC 1438 (TCC) (13 June 2008)

The court dismissed the application to set aside the consent order because the claimant did not mislead the court, the lack of consent from Mr Buckell was disclosed, and the court had discretion under CPR to extend time for service of particulars of claim. No evidence was provided that Mr Buckell would have had good grounds to oppose the extension had he been heard.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1438 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Jason Kingsley Drummond; Respondent: Pool Design Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Consent Order and Challenge Jurisdiction / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service of Particulars of Claim, Consent Orders, Case Management Discretion, Service of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Service of Particulars of Claim Consent Orders Case Management Discretion Service of Court Orders

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Kingsley Drummond

Claimant

Pool Design Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Consent Order and Challenge Jurisdiction / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order extending time for service of particulars of claim should be set aside for lack of consent by all defendants
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to extend time for service of particulars of claim in the absence of consent from all defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claimant misled the court in obtaining the extension

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the application to set aside the consent order because the claimant did not mislead the court, the lack of consent from Mr Buckell was disclosed, and the court had discretion under CPR to extend time for service of particulars of claim. No evidence was provided that Mr Buckell would have had good grounds to oppose the extension had he been heard.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Buckell's application to set aside the consent order is dismissed.
  • Mr Buckell to pay £1,000 towards the claimant's costs, representing 25% of a summary assessed amount of £4,000.