header-logo header-logo

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil Litigation

Drury v BBC [2007] EWCA Civ 497, [2007] All ER (D) 384 (May)

CPR 7.6(3)(b) (extension of time for serving a claim form) requires the judge to consider whether all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the defendant during the four-month period allowed.  Attempts made after that time are irrelevant.

The right approach is to consider what steps were taken in the four-month period and then to ask whether, in the circumstances, those steps were all that it was reasonable for the claimant to have taken.  The test is whether what the claimant had done was objectively reasonable, given the circumstances that prevailed. 

A litigant who leaves his efforts at service to the last moment and then fails due to an unexpected problem is very unlikely to persuade the court that he has taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim in time. Without such a finding, the court is unable to extend time, and both sub-paras (b) and (c) of P 7.6(3) have to be satisfied for the court to have discretion to grant relief.

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll