AAA v BBB (a company incorporated and registered in Curacao) (Consequentials)

Where an arbitration claim form is served out of time, the challenge is jurisdictional and must be determined under CPR 11. CPR 62.4(2) modifies the ordinary service period but preserves the requirements of CPR 7.5 and 7.6. After expiry, an extension is available only if the claimant took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form but was unable to do so, and applied promptly. The court has no inherent or implied power to extend time outside that scheme. Court staff cannot grant an extension, and a freezing order does not impliedly extend the claim form unless the judge was satisfied, on proper evidence, that CPR 7.6 was met. Material non-disclosure of the expired claim form and the applicable extension requirements may also require discharge of without-notice relief.

The claimant obtained a worldwide freezing order without notice in aid of a Latvian-seated arbitration against BBB. The arbitration claim form was issued on 18 December 2024 and, under CPR 62.4(2), had to be served by 17 January 2025. The freezing order was granted on 7 February and sealed on 13 February 2025. The claim form was not served until 26 March 2025.

The claimant subsequently obtained, on the papers, an order purporting to extend time for service. BBB and certain non-cause-of-action defendants challenged the claim form, the extension order and the freezing order. The principal issues were whether time had validly been extended, whether the claimant satisfied CPR 7.6(3), and whether material facts had been withheld from the judges granting the relief.

1. The applications succeeded. The claim form and the order purporting to extend time were set aside, and the worldwide freezing order was discharged.
2. A challenge to service of an expired claim form is made under CPR 11(1)(b). The court considers afresh whether the requirements for an extension under CPR 7.6(3) are satisfied.
3. CPR 62.4(2) modifies CPR 7.5 and 7.6 by replacing the ordinary four-month period with one month for an arbitration claim form. It does not create a general discretionary power to extend time. Even if it did, the power would be exercised by reference to CPR 7.6.
4. After expiry, CPR 7.6(3) permits an extension only where the court failed to serve the claim form, or the claimant took all reasonable steps to serve it but was unable to do so, and in either case acted promptly. These are jurisdictional requirements. The claimant took no steps to serve the claim form before expiry, and the wish to preserve the secrecy of a without-notice freezing order did not satisfy the rule.
5. The extension application was also too late. The claimant applied more than two months after expiry and did not act promptly even after being told that the claim form had expired. Court correspondence, listing arrangements and the freezing order could not amount to an implied extension.
6. The claimant made material non-disclosures. The judge granting the freezing order was not told that the claim form had expired, a fact fundamental to jurisdiction. The judge granting the extension was not told of the requirements of CPR 7.6(3). Those omissions were material under the objective test for without-notice relief.
7. The court declined to decide whether section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 or Practice Direction 6B permitted a freezing order against non-parties to the arbitration agreement, since the issue might remain unnecessary.

First-instance decision. No earlier decision in the same proceedings is stated in the judgment.