This Practice Note considers service of the particulars of claim. It covers the specific time periods by which it must be served under CPR 7.4 as well as the different time limits that apply in specific courts or for specific types of claims. It explores practical considerations and provides some illustrative cases. Contained within the claim form Where the particulars of claim are contained in the claim form, they will be taken to be served at the same time the claim form is served. Specific considerations apply when determining the date for service of the claim form. For guidance, see Practice Note: Service of the claim form—time periods for service. Issues may arise as to whether the particulars of claim have in fact been included within the claim form. This was the case in Al-Hasani v Nettler (2019), where it was submitted that the claimant had failed to serve the particulars of claim. The judge found that the information contained in the claim form met the requirements for setting out the particulars of claim

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court held that a claim form and associated documents had been validly served on a defendant resident in Spain through the Spanish Burofax postal service pursuant to CPR 6.40 and article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. The court rejected challenges based on the absence of Spanish translations, alleged procedural irregularities in the service address, and purported defects arising from correspondence about response dates. In the alternative, the court held that retrospective validation under CPR 6.15(2) would have been justified because the defendant had plainly become aware of the proceedings within the claim form’s validity period and had suffered no prejudice. The judgment provides practical guidance on service abroad, the interaction between CPR 6.15 and the Hague Service Convention, and the court’s approach to defendants perceived to be evading service.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court set aside an order permitting two claimants to join and serve a Panamanian ship manager, IMC, out of the jurisdiction. Mr Justice Bright held that the claimants had not raised a serious issue to be tried that IMC exercised indirect or de facto control over the relevant companies or was their ultimate beneficial owner. Independently, the application had not been fairly presented to the judge who granted permission. The decision emphasises the need for applicants for service out to address the established three-stage test expressly and to make full and frank disclosure, preferably by following the Commercial Court Guide checklist. Bright J said that he intended to draw his observations on use of the checklist to the attention of his colleagues in the Commercial Court and trusted that they would be noted by practitioners specialising in this area.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court dismissed Nexans SA’s challenge to English jurisdiction over Intralinks Inc’s claim for unpaid virtual data room charges. The court held that Intralinks had a good arguable case that the contract was governed by English law, so the contractual gateway for service out applied. It also held that an implied term required Nexans to comply with Intralinks’ invoice payment instructions, meaning that the alleged non-payment was a breach committed in England. England was clearly the appropriate forum, notwithstanding related French proceedings. The decision considers competing contractual documents, the place of payment under an invoicing clause and the weight of an English governing law clause in the forum analysis.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Owen Williams, partner at Clarke Wilmott, considers the decision in Bill Kenwright Ltd v Flash Entertainment FZ LLC, which dealt with the circumstances under which an Abu Dhabi company can be served and brought into the jurisdiction of the English court.

Dispute resolution analysis: The High Court upheld a Part 11 challenge to service out without permission. The claimant had not shown a good arguable case that a later Security Letter, containing an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, was supported by consideration. Bare forbearance did not suffice without a plausible evidential basis that it had been given in return for the defendants’ promises. The court nevertheless granted permission to serve out under CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(6)(c), because the Loan Agreement was governed by English law and England was the appropriate forum. The cross-application was heard ex parte because substantive participation by the defendants could have risked submission to the jurisdiction.

This Practice Note answers frequently asked questions about service standards and service levels in business-to-business (B2B) services agreements. For further information on service standards and service levels, see: • Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements • Practice Note: Implied terms in contracts for goods and services • Practice Note: Key terms and conditions in commercial contracts • Practice Note: Service levels in outsourcing • Practice Note: Outsourcing remedies—step-in rights, service credits, liquidated damages and termination • Services agreements negotiation checklist What service standard is implied by law? Where a contract for services is made in the course of a business, section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA 1982) implies a term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill. This implied term can be excluded or modified by express wording. Any exclusion or restriction of the reasonable care and skill standard is treated as an exclusion of liability for negligence under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977)—to be enforceable, it would need to satisfy UCTA

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court rejected an application to set aside a second extension order for service of a claim form in Brazil. The judgment confirms that administrative challenges with the foreign process section (FPS) can constitute good reason for extending time, particularly where attempts to effect service were diligent despite complications. The court adopted a practical approach, recognising that minor breaches of full and frank disclosure obligations will not necessarily invalidate an extension order where the overall justice of the case supports maintaining the extension.

Dispute Resolution analysis: the High Court allowed a jurisdiction challenge and set aside proceedings where the claimant had purported to serve an individual defendant at two English addresses despite evidence that he had relocated permanently to Cyprus. Applying the binding Court of Appeal authority in Fridman, the court held that a defendant must be present within England and Wales to be validly served there, subject to the narrowly construed exception for temporary absence. The claimant had also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 6.9 concerning service at a usual or last known residence. The judgment highlights the need to establish both the defendant’s presence within the jurisdiction and compliance with the procedural requirements for service.

This expression has two main meanings in a construction context: • the duties or services to be performed, generally by a consultant, or contractor under a pre-construction agreement'>services agreement. • mechanical or electrical etc systems that are installed to make buildings functional, comfortable and/or safe, such as central heating, air conditioning, drainage, lifts

In Private Finance 2 (PF2) there is a standard form Services Output Specification which is required to be used, with amendments for sector specific issues. This sets out the outputs that the services are required to meet.

The time during which the services are provided at the facilities.