F G Hawkes (Western) Ltd v Beli Shipping Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 1740 (Comm), [2009] All ER (D) 207 (Jul)
On the true construction of CPR 7.6 and following established case law, there was a clear contrast between CPR 7.6(2) and 7.6(3). CPR 7.6(2) governed applications for extensions of time made within the period of validity of the claim form and CPR 7.6(3) dealt with applications for extensions of time made after the expiry of that period. Under CPR 7.6(2) the court had power to grant an extension of time even if it was not satisfied that the claimant had taken all reasonable steps to serve and had acted promptly.
The court’s power under CPR 7.6(2) should be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 and 1.2. That entailed an inquiry into why the claim form had not been served within the relevant period. Once that was answered, the court took a more calibrated approach; therefore the better the reason for not having served in time, the more likely it was that an extension would be granted. Where there was no reason for the failure
