CPR 3.9 in practice

High Court enforces new CPR 3.9 test after failings by Claimant.

In Venulum Property Investments Limited v Space Architecture Limited [2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC), heard by Edwards-Stuart J, the Claimant had sought an extension of time for the service of its Particulars of Claim.  It served the Claim Form on the last day of the protected period and failed to serve its Particulars of Claim until fourteen days later.  This was the fault of the Claimant's solicitors and their reading of the rules on service under CPR Part 7.  The Defendants opposed the Claimant's application later for an extension and the judge agreed enforcing the new rule as expected.  Parties have been warned that we are in a new era where mistakes will not be tolerated with the rules being enforced as set down.  This was echoed in Edwards-Stuart J's comments citing a new "stricter approach" to these types of applications with the emphasis under CPR Part 1 of compliance with all rules, practice directions and court orders.

Both sides must therefore make every effort to comply with the rules otherwise face claims/defences being struck out for non-compliance and no easy buy-in when seeking relief from sanction.