Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
This case deals with the interaction between the CPR and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, when dealing with service of proceedings. In short, it decides that as long as proceedings are issued within the limitation period and served more than 14 days before the first hearing (whenever that takes place), they are validly served, even if service occurs more than four months after issue. The court held that the judgments in Re Kelcrown Homes Limited and Re HS Works Limited were wrongly decided and did not follow them. Permission has been given for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Written by Steven Fennell, barrister, Exchange Chambers, and Karen Unsworth, director, Hewlett Swanson.
Bell & Anor v Ide & Ors  EWHC 230 (Ch) (12 February 2020)
HHJ Paul Matthews’ decision confirms that where proceedings are issued within the limitation period and served at least 14 days before the first effective hearing, the court will not create a limitation defence where none would otherwise exist.
The court still has a discretion to refuse to vary the date of the first hearing and is unlikely to allow unreasonably long delays, or any delay at all where there is no good reason for it.
If the decision is upheld on appeal, it will mean that an applicant who issues within the limitation period will not face the risk of a limitation defence where the first hearing is adjourned for reasonable and proper case management reasons.
The applicants issued proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in January 2019, shortly before the sixth anniversary of the facts giving rise to the claim. For the purposes of the hearing, it was accepted that there was an arguable case that the primary limitation period was six years.
The procedure for claims issued under IA 1986 is governed by IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, which incorporates part of the CPR but not all of it. In particular:
The court listed the first hearing for a date in July 2019. All but one of the respondents was in England. The applicants did not serve the application notice on all the respondents immediately. They applied successfully for permission to serve the proceedings on the respondent who was outside the jurisdiction, and to adjourn the first hearing to a date after service on him.
The first hearing was relisted for a date in October 2019 and all the respondents were duly served more than 14 days in advance.
Two respondents applied to strike out the application on the basis that:
IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 12.9 requires the applicant to serve the respondents with notice of the date initially fixed by the court, even if that hearing is vacated and relisted, in accordance with the decision in Re HS Works Limited  EWHC 1045 (Ch)
the first hearing should not have been adjourned, because the court should approach an application to extend time for service of IA 1986 proceedings in the same way as it approaches an application to extend time under the CPR, following Re Kelcrown Homes Limited  EWHC 537 (Ch)
HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) decided that IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 12.9 requires a respondent to be served at least 14 days before the effective hearing. If the court changes the date of the first hearing, the proceedings have to be served at least 14 days before the hearing that actually goes ahead. IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 12.9 is a procedural rule whose purpose is to ensure that the respondent has at least 14 days to prepare for the first hearing.
Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Prentis (as he then was) reached the opposite conclusion in Re HS Works Limited  EWHC 1045 (Ch), deciding that IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 12.9 requires an applicant to serve the application notice at least 14 days before the date initially fixed by the court, even if that date is varied and the hearing takes place on a different date. HHJ Paul Matthews decided that this analysis was wrong and that the proceedings had been served on time.
The judge went on to consider what the position would have been if Re HS Works Limited was correct. The point in question was whether the district judge should have adjourned the first hearing and extended time for service to the later hearing.
In Re Kelcrown Homes Limited, the High Court decided that time for service should not be extended in that situation unless the case is one where time for service of a claim form would have been extended under CPR 7.6. To do otherwise would be to deprive the respondent of a potential limitation defence.
HHJ Paul Matthews decided that Kelcrown was wrongly decided. If a CPR Part 7 claim form is not served within the relevant service period, it becomes a nullity. Extending the time for service creates the potential loss of a limitation defence. An IA 1986 application which is not served in time does not become a nullity. There is no potential loss of a limitation defence if time for service is extended.
The respondents were given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal to allow it to decide between the competing views in the High Court.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234