Lacey v Palmer Marine Services Ltd & Anor

Time for serving a claim form is distinct from time for serving particulars of claim or other statements of case. A direction staying service of statements of case does not extend the claim-form period unless properly construed to do so. Where a claim form expires before service, CPR 6.16 cannot ordinarily circumvent the restricted extension procedure in CPR 7.6(3). Solicitor error, absence of prejudice, pre-action correspondence, sympathy for the claimant, and alleged shortcomings by defendants did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The claim form was struck out.

The claimant brought fatal collision proceedings arising from the death of Darren Lacey. A claim form issued on 20 March 2018 was not served within its four-month period. An earlier order required service by 20 July 2018 and addressed whether Admiralty collision statements of case should be replaced by conventional statements of case.

The claimant argued that a subsequent court email staying service of statements of case also extended time for serving the claim form. The defendants sought strike-out. Alternatively, the claimant sought dispensation with service under CPR 6.16.

1. A court order is construed objectively by reference to its natural and ordinary meaning, its purpose, the document as a whole, and the relevant background. The July email concerned statements of case, not service of the claim form.
2. The 24 July order left intact the requirement to serve the claim form by 20 July. Service was therefore out of time.
3. Following Godwin v Swindon BC and Kuenyehia v International Hospitals Group Ltd, CPR 6.16 could not be used to obtain in substance an extension governed by CPR 7.6(3). Abela v Baadarani and Kaki v National Private Air Transport Co concerned CPR 6.15 and did not displace that principle.
4. The circumstances were not exceptional. The claimant’s lawyers misunderstood Admiralty procedure, failed to seek clarification, and missed a known time limit. Lack of prejudice, personal difficulties, the merits, pre-action correspondence, and criticism of the defendants did not alter the result.
5. The defendants’ applications succeeded and the claim form was struck out. The claimant’s application was dismissed.