Malcolm -Green v And So To Bed Ltd
Decision date: 16 December 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] EWHC 4016 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
The claimant photographer issued proceedings for copyright infringement but failed to serve the claim form within the four‑month period. A district judge granted a without‑notice extension, but the High Court set that extension aside and struck out the claim because no good reason or exceptional circumstances justified late service and the defendant would be deprived of a limitation defence. The court noted service of correspondence notifying issuance does not substitute for formal service of the claim form.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a claimant fails to serve a claim form within CPR 7.6 time limits, courts should apply the rule strictly: absent good reason shown to the court (and, if relevant, exceptional circumstances), an extension of time should not be granted. The loss to a defendant of a limitation defence is a powerful factor against exercising discretion to extend time. Notification by correspondence that proceedings have been issued does not constitute service of the claim form for CPR 7.6 purposes.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggests that a claimant’s offer to abandon time‑barred heads of claim will not necessarily remove the prejudice to a defendant caused by late service, and that a defendant who reasonably believes proceedings have been issued may refrain from interim procedural steps; claimants should not rely on defendants to “move things along” under CPR 7.7. These points were treated as observations rather than the core basis for the decision.