Service & Amendment of Claim Forms - Avoiding Problems & Pitfalls

Service & Amendment of Claim Forms - Avoiding Problems & Pitfalls


13 Jun 2024

10:00 AM

12:00 PM

With a SmartPlan £144

With a Season Ticket £160

Standard price £320

All prices exclude VAT
Intermediate: Requires some prior subject knowledge
2 hours
Group bookings
email us to discuss discounts for 5+ delegates


CPR 6 and 7, the rules about service of the claim form, form a tricky section of the Civil Procedure Rules. Every year, applications are made, and decisions reported where the claimant is trying to avoid the consequences of defective service or asking for some latitude to be shown regarding its attempted service.

Equally troubling is the area of the amendment of claims after service, the need for which can sometimes occur extremely late in the litigation process. This may be due to a good reason or to correct an oversight. When will courts permit the amendment of a claim and which tests must be satisfied?

Aimed at lawyers involved in pursuing or defending civil claims, this virtual classroom session will provide an outline of the main rules on service and the amendment of claims. It will work as a refresher, as well as updating delegates on recent cases.

What You Will Learn

This live and interactive session will cover the following:

Service of a Claim Form

  • The two-fold purpose of the service of a claim form
  • The date of deemed service under CPR 6.26 (and, by analogy, CPR 6.14) using the ‘signed for first class mail service’: Diriye v Bojaj
  • The latest case where a claim form had expired: Boxwood Leisure Limited v Gleeson Construction Services
  • Or not been served on persons unknown
  • Problems over service following the electronic issue of a claim form and payment of the court fee: Citysprint UK Limited v Barts Health NHS Trust

Amending a Claim Form

  • Following Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International principles, different results occur on claimants’ applications because each case involves a balancing exercise of all interests
  • Why was a ‘very late’ application to amend allowed in Salt Ship Design AS v Prysmian Powerlink SRL, with an impact on and at trial?
  • But a ‘late’ one was not in KMG International Limited NV v Chen - disruption to trial preparation and no good explanation
  • Similarly refused, but at trial itself, was the defendant in Jones v Lydon, “the Sex Pistols dispute”
  • Amendment to the claim to plead an estoppel allowed on conditions in Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation

Recording of live sessions: Soon after the Learn Live session has taken place you will be able to go back and access the recording - should you wish to revisit the material discussed.