Aldridge v Edwards

A stay of proceedings prevents the parties from taking procedural steps, but it does not suspend time running for service of a summons unless the order expressly or effectively provides for that result. A plaintiff who obtains a stay under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) must apply for permission to serve or for variation of the stay if service becomes necessary. CCR Order 7 Rule 20 contains a strict, self-contained code governing extensions of the summons validity period. The stay does not create an implied extension or permit the plaintiff to avoid that code.

The claimant issued a personal injury summons shortly before limitation expired. The county court permitted issue but stayed the proceedings pending filing a schedule of special damages. The claimant then experienced difficulty tracing the defendant and obtained extensions of the summons, eventually serving him.

The district judge set aside service, holding that the requirements for extending the summons had not been met. The county court judge allowed the claimant’s appeal, holding that the stay stopped time running for service. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the stay prevented time running under CCR Order 7 Rule 20.

1. Appeal allowed. The order of the district judge setting aside service was restored.
2. Per Lord Justice Brooke, with Lord Justice Roch and Mr Justice Ferris agreeing, a stay has its ordinary procedural effect: it halts the proceedings and prevents the parties from taking steps while it remains in force. It does not, however, stop time running for the service of a summons under CCR Order 7 Rule 20.
3. The order made under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) permitted issue of the summons despite the absence of the required documents. It contained no implied term permitting service. If service had become necessary, the claimant should have applied to vary or relax the stay.
4. Cashmore v Blue Circle Plumbing Fixtures Ltd (CAT 30th July 1996) was consistent with that approach because the stay in that case expressly permitted service. Hillier v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (CAT 15th May 1997) correctly stated that a stay did not stop time running under Order 7 Rule 20 and that no implied extension arose.
5. Order 7 Rule 20 was a strict, self-contained code requiring prompt service and a proper application showing the necessary grounds for extension. The claimant’s solicitors, having neither obtained permission to serve nor varied the stay, could not take valid steps under that rule before the summons expired. The merits of the extensions therefore fell away.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and the district judge’s order restored.
• Birmingham County Court: On 18 October 1999, HH Judge Boggis QC allowed the claimant’s appeal from the district judge and held that the stay stopped time running for service.
• Birmingham County Court: District Judge Dowling had set aside service of the summons and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs.