Practice

Failure to serve particulars of claim in time - particulars of claim not complying with rules within prescribed period - discretion to extend time for service of particulars of claimTotty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral & West Cheshire Community NHS Trust; CA (Lords Justice Peter Gibson, Chadwick and Kay); 31 July 2001In the first case the claimant had served her claim form in time but not the particulars of claim.

The defendant unsuccessfully applied to strike out the claim.

The judge upheld a ruling that the court had discretion to extend time for service and deem that the particulars had been served in time.

The defendant appealed.

In the second case the claimant had served particulars of claim which did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR).

The defendant unsuccessfully applied to strike out.

The judge allowed its appeal.

The claimant appealed.Michael Harrison QC and Nicola Saxton (instructed by Jones Goodall, Wakefield) for the claimant in the first action; Daniel Pearce-Higgins QC and Andrew Lewis (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Leeds) for the defendant; R M Harrison QC and Peter Foster (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Leeds) for the claimant in the second action; Benjamin Browne QC and Tim Grover (instructed by Weightmans, Liverpool) for the defendant.Held, dismissing the first appeal and allowing the second appeal, that the court had a discretion to grant an extension of time to a claimant who had served a claim form within the time prescribed by the CPR but who either had not served particulars of claim, or had failed to serve particulars complying with the requirements of CPR part 16, within the period prescribed by rule 7.5; that there was no justification for concluding in the absence of express words to that effect that the particulars of claim came within the provisions of rule 7.6 by implication; that it was a perfectly sensible approach to have a very strict regime in relation to the claim form and a discretionary regime subject to the overriding objective in relation to the particulars of claim where there was a failure to comply with the rules as to service; and that, accordingly, in the circumstances, the court had discretion to extend time for service of particulars of claim in both cases.