The recent County Court decision in Arnold Holdings Ltd v Keelys LLP [2025] EWCC offers an important reminder of the strict approach taken for retrospective extensions under CPR 7.6(3)(b). Despite the court's administrative errors, the claimant's failure to take all reasonable steps to serve the claim form was the deciding factor in this case. 

CPR 7.6(3)(b) allows for an extension of time beyond the deadline when the claimant has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to serve the claim form on time. The court confirmed that this is a binary test and that its errors do not excuse a claimant's procedural failures.

The facts of this case were that the claimant submitted the claim form for issue on 20 June 2023, just one day before the limitation period expired. 

The court issued the form on 13 July, setting the deadline for service on 13 November.

Despite instructions from the claimant to the court that it was to serve the claim itself, the court mistakenly attempted to serve the claim on the defendant. The claimant and defendant agreed to treat the court’s service as ineffective. 

The claimant made contact with the court to request the sealed claim form to effect service, but this was not forthcoming. On 17 October, the claimant served an unsealed copy. The defendant acknowledged this and indicated an intention to challenge jurisdiction. The defendant formally applied to contest jurisdiction on 14 November.

However, as the sealed claim form had not been served, the claimant then applied for an extension of time for service on 15 November, after the deadline for service had passed. 

The district judge refused the application, and the claimant’s appeal was subsequently dismissed. The court's reasoning behind their decision was that the claimant had failed to:  

• Request a sealed copy from the defendant
• Apply to stay or dispense with service
• Make an in-time extension application
• Explore agreement with the defendant on service

The court was also critical of the claimant’s lack of activity between 4 October and the service deadline, especially given the high-value nature of the professional negligence claim.

In light of this case, it is vital to ensure that the following steps are taken:

• Be proactive: don’t rely on the court to correct administrative errors
• Document everything, especially when limitation deadlines are looming.
• Know your options: consider whether an application is necessary to stay or dispense with service.
• If the deadline is looming and you are without a copy of the sealed claim form to effect service properly, act early. Delay can be catastrophic, even if it is the court that is partly at fault. 

 This decision reinforces the unforgiving nature of CPR 7.6(3)(b). Administrative errors by the court may be unfortunate, but they won't save a claim if the claimant fails to act. 

For more information

For more information or further advice, please contact me.