Limitation periods and procedural deadlines must be complied with! The recent case of Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd & Ors (2025) is a useful reminder of this and that parties to a claim do not have the power to impose or extend a stay (which is a pause) of proceedings. The parties can make an application for a stay but ultimately it is the court’s decision.

This case shows that failing to apply for an extension of time to serve a claim before the deadline expires will have fatal consequences for the Claimant. The court does not have the power to grant an extension to the deadline to serve a claim retrospectively.

Background

This case involved a dispute relating to the design and construction of a multi-million-pound library, history and customer centre in Worcester. In line with a building contract a design and build contractor (the “Claimant”) undertook the financing, design, construction, completion and commissioning of the project. The defendants were four consultants and sub-contractors engaged on the project (together, the “Defendants”).

The Claimant issued a court claim against the Defendants on 26 January 2024. The court granted a stay of the claim, to enable the parties to comply with the relevant pre action Protocol. The time for service of the proceedings was due to expire on 26 February 2025.

The parties agreed directions for compliance with the Protocol. As part of this, the parties were due to hold a without prejudice meeting by 22 November 2024. That deadline was extended to 31 January 2025 by a consent order and then extended further to 31 March 2025.

On 6 March 2025, after the stay expiry and after the deadline to serve the claim, the Claimant applied to the court seeking an extension to the stay to the end of March 2025. As part of this request, the Claimant attached a draft consent order which had not been agreed by the Defendants. The Claimant made a further application to extend the stay along with the time for service of the claim.

The Defendants’ position was that the stay expired, the 4-month period for the claim form then recommenced and the Claimant then failed to serve the claim form by 26 February 2025 as required.

The Claimant accepted there had been no express agreement to extend the stay but argued that an agreement to a stay was implied by the agreement to extend the deadline for the without prejudice meeting. The Defendants challenged whether the court had jurisdiction to make such an order.

Decision

The issues for the court to decide were:

1. Did the agreement to extend the without prejudice meeting deadline imply an agreement to stay the court claim for the same period?
2. Was an extension of time for service of the claim required in any event?

No agreement to extend the stay of the proceedings

The Judge found there was no implied agreement to extend the stay as a result of the agreement to extend the time for the without prejudice meeting. Had there been no limitation issue, then the meeting could have taken place after the stay ended.

The Claimant needed a retrospective extension of the stay. The Judge held it was impossible to conclude that the Defendants impliedly agreed to a stay being granted retrospectively so as to deprive them of any limitation defences. The Judge also considered it relevant that the agreement to extend the time for the without prejudice meeting occurred before the existing stay had expired so there was still time for the Claimant to take steps to protect its position.

The Judge held there to be no agreement to extend the stay and, even if there had been a written agreement, at most it would have been an agreement to apply to court for consent.

Extension of time for service of a claim form

The Civil Procedures Rules 1998 (“CPR”) permit a party to apply for an order extending the deadline to serve a claim. Other than in two limited circumstances set out in CPR 7.6(3), the application should be made before the deadline. Neither of the two limited circumstances applied in this case so the court had no jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s application.

The Claimants’ applications were therefore refused, and The Civil Procedures Rules 1998 (“CPR”) permit a party to apply for an order extending the deadline to serve a claim. Other than in two limited circumstances set out in CPR 7.6(3), the application should be made before the deadline. Neither of the two limited circumstances applied in this case so the court had no jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s application.

The Claimants’ applications were therefore refused, and the claim was struck out.

Takeaway Points

1. Do not leave issuing or serving court proceedings to the last minute.
2. Any agreement to extend a deadline must be clearly documented with a court order.
3. The parties can agree to consent to a stay but they do not have the power to extend a stay of court proceedings – the discretion to make such an order remains with the court.
4. An application for an extension of time must be made before the deadline, except in the limited exceptions set out in CPR 7.6(3).
5. If an application for an extension of time is not made before the expiry of the time for service of the claim, the court will not have jurisdiction to consider the application. Relief from sanctions do not apply.

Contact details

eleanor.tordoff@tyrlaw.co.uk +44(0)7908 190547 +44(0)113 322 8240