Service of claim forms
The court is unable to waive late or defective service of a claim form as a procedural error under CPR 3.10. It can do so under CPR 6.15 and 6.16 where there is "good reason" but this jurisdiction was not invoked by the claimant, presumably because case law makes clear that it does not apply to mistakes such as forgetting to serve the claim form along with the particulars of claim (Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd).
Summary judgment and defence
There is no requirement under CPR 15 for a defendant to file a defence where it makes a strike out or summary judgment application. Where a summary judgment application is made on the basis of a question of law, there is no requirement for the evidence in support of the application to contain a statement as to the absence of a real prospect of success (King v Stiefel).
Interim injunctions
There were grounds to suspect serious breaches of the procedural requirements in a significant number of applications by local authorities for interim injunctions against "Persons Unknown" targeting Traveller sites. The court reviewed the law relating to injunctions against persons unknown and set out a number of safeguards to ensure that they are only granted in appropriate cases (Barking and Dagenham LBC v Persons Unknown).
Fortification of undertaking
If the court considers that fortification of an undertaking in damages is justified in connection with an injunction, there is no reason why it cannot relate to past as well as future losses. Fortification is not different in principle from an order for security for costs which can be ordered for incurred costs as well as future costs. There may be a change in circumstances justifying an order for fortification even though an order was not justified when the injunction was granted, such as a decline in the financial position of the applicant for the injunction (Alta Trading UK Ltd v Bosworth).
Calculating limitation periods
The Supreme Court has unanimously held that in "midnight deadline cases", the day following expiry of the deadline should be included when calculating the limitation period. Mills & Reeve acted for the successful respondent (Matthew v Sedman – see our briefing for more detail).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
