Grant v Dawn Meats (UK)

A court-imposed stay ordinarily halts proceedings and suspends every unexpired procedural time limit. When the stay ends, the parties resume from the position reached when it began.

This rule applies to the period for serving a claim form. Service of originating process is important, but it does not stand outside the ordinary effect of a stay. Nothing in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or Practice Direction 8B requires that distinction. Accordingly, the four-month service period under rule 7.5 must be calculated after excluding the full period of the stay.

The claimant suffered an accident while employed by the defendant, which admitted liability. As damages could not be agreed under the applicable low-value personal injury protocol before limitation expired, the claimant issued Part 8 proceedings and obtained a stay. The claim form was served after the stay had expired.

Deputy District Judge Davy held that the stay suspended the obligation to serve the claim form and that service was in time. On appeal, His Honour Judge Gore QC held that service of a claim form stood outside the stay and declared that the form had not been served within four months of issue.

The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether a court-imposed stay applies to service of the claim form and suspends the applicable service period.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. A stay ordinarily halts or freezes proceedings. During its operation, procedural steps are neither required nor permitted unless the rules or the terms of the stay provide otherwise. When the stay is lifted or expires, the parties and the court resume from the position reached when it was imposed.

2. The stay applied to the time for serving the claim form. It began 13 days after issue and expired on 30 November 2016. The claimant therefore retained four months less 13 days from that date. Service on 6 March 2017 was within time.

3. Neither the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 nor Practice Direction 8B distinguishes service of a claim form from other procedural steps for the purpose of a stay. Paragraph 16 of Practice Direction 8B contemplates issue of proceedings accompanied by an application for a stay. Paragraph 16.2 requires the claim form to be sent, rather than served, to the defendant. That language was inconsistent with a requirement that the form be served before the stay could operate.

4. The explanation of a stay in UK Highways A55 Ltd v Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd was equally applicable to service of a claim form. Rule 7.5 did not prevent a court-imposed stay from suspending its service period. The authorities concerning compliance with service rules and extensions of time did not address the distinct effect of a stay.

5. The observations in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP about the special importance of service did not require a different result. Barton concerned formality in bringing a claim to a defendant's attention, not whether a stay suspends time. Treating claim-form service differently would also produce an unnecessarily cumbersome sequence of applications to lift and reimpose a stay.

6. Issue of a claim form creates a lis and gives proceedings legal life before service, although proceedings will lapse if service never occurs. The decision of Deputy District Judge Davy was reinstated, the defendant's strike-out application was dismissed, and the claim form was declared to have been served in time.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the claimant's appeal unanimously, reinstated Deputy District Judge Davy's decision, dismissed the defendant's strike-out application and declared the claim form served in time: [2018] EWCA Civ 2212.
2. Exeter Combined Court Centre, His Honour Judge Gore QC: Allowed the defendant's appeal and declared that the claim form had not been served within the prescribed four-month period.
3. Exeter Combined Court Centre, Deputy District Judge Davy: Held that the stay applied to every procedural step, including service of the claim form, and determined that service was in time.