Practice

Writ issued under Rules of the Supreme Court and application to renew under Civil Procedure Rules - application made on last day for renewal and actual renewal order made two days later - renewal of writ not valid - action to be stayed on grounds of foreign jurisdiction clausePirelli Cables Ltd and Others v United Thai Shipping Corporation Ltd and Others: QBD: (Langley J): 5 April 2000

The claimants issued a concurrent writ under the RSC marked 'not for service outside jurisdiction' and on the last day of four months from the date of its issue, made an application to renew it under CPR, but the order for renewal was made two days later.

The defendants applied to set aside the renewed writ served on them and to stay the action on grounds that the bill of lading contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause to courts in Thailand.The claimants contended that the substance of the application should be dealt with under the new rules so that the writ had been valid for service for six months from the date of issue and had been renewed while being valid for service.Richard Waller (instructed by Dibb Lupton Alsop) for the claimants; Thomas Macey-Dare (instructed by Holmes Hardingham Walser Johnston Winter Solicitors) for the defendants.Held, granting the defendants' application, that where an application was made under the new rules for the renewal of a concurrent writ issued under the old rules the court would apply the old rule principles to consider the application's merit since the new rules made no reference to the concurrent claim forms albeit they were referred to in para.

4 of appendix 17 to the Commercial Court Guide; that therefore the original writ had expired on the date of the renewal which took place more than four months after the date of its issue; that further, despite existing special circumstances to exercise the court's discretion to extend the time for renewal of the writ, the court would stay the action since the illegibility of the bill containing the jurisdiction clause was not sufficient to persuade the court to override the clause when the appropriate forum for trial was evenly balanced.