Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd & Ors

Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd & Ors

The court refused permission to extend time for service of Particulars of Claim due to unexplained delay of over five years, weak and vague claims against the Miller defendants, and the need for stricter enforcement of procedural rules under the post-Jackson regime.

Parties
Claimant: Venulum Property Investments Ltd; Defendant: Space Architecture Limited; Defendant: MRP Developments Services Limited; Defendant: MRP Developments Limited; Defendant: Realacre Limited; Defendant: Mark Kevin Willmott; Defendant: Richard Stewart Anderson; Defendant: Robin John Ungemuth; Defendant: Abbeyross Limited; Defendant: Richard Miller; Defendant: Millers Estate Agents (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Relief From Sanctions, Professional Negligence, Bad Faith, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Relief From Sanctions Professional Negligence Bad Faith Limitation Period

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venulum Property Investments Ltd

Claimant

Space Architecture Limited

Defendant

MRP Developments Services Limited

Defendant

MRP Developments Limited

Defendant

Realacre Limited

Defendant

Mark Kevin Willmott

Defendant

Richard Stewart Anderson

Defendant

Robin John Ungemuth

Defendant

Abbeyross Limited

Defendant

Richard Miller

Defendant

Millers Estate Agents (A Firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim under CPR 3.1(2)(a) and CPR 3.9
  2. 2 Whether the delay and procedural default should bar the claim against the Miller defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused permission to extend time for service of Particulars of Claim due to unexplained delay of over five years, weak and vague claims against the Miller defendants, and the need for stricter enforcement of procedural rules under the post-Jackson regime.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to extend time for service of Particulars of Claim is denied.