Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor S.A [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC)
Five pages. Six months. No jurisdiction.
George and Archie discuss service.
GEORGE:
The claim form was issued on 20 December.
ARCHIE:
Yes.
GEORGE:
Service out of the jurisdiction required service within six months.
ARCHIE:
Correct.
GEORGE:
It was not served within six months.
ARCHIE:
An extension had been obtained.
GEORGE:
On what basis?
ARCHIE:
Uncertainties.
GEORGE:
About?
ARCHIE:
Permission to serve out.
The time required for service in France.
Alignment of pleadings with parallel proceedings.
GEORGE:
Did developments elsewhere affect the wording of the claim form?
ARCHIE:
No.
GEORGE:
How long was the claim form?
ARCHIE:
Five pages.
GEORGE:
What required translation?
ARCHIE:
Approximately three thousand pages.
GEORGE:
Mostly?
ARCHIE:
The Particulars of Claim.
GEORGE:
Could the five-page claim form have been translated and served promptly?
ARCHIE:
Yes.
GEORGE:
Could particulars have followed?
ARCHIE:
Yes.
GEORGE:
The extension carried service beyond the primary limitation period.
ARCHIE:
It did.
GEORGE:
Was that drawn clearly to the court’s attention on the without-notice application?
ARCHIE:
No.
GEORGE:
Was there an arguable limitation defence?
ARCHIE:
Yes.
GEORGE:
Was the court told that granting the extension would remove it?
ARCHIE:
It was not.
GEORGE:
So the matter was reheard.
ARCHIE:
Yes.
GEORGE:
Was there a good reason to extend time for serving the claim form?
ARCHIE:
No.
GEORGE:
Was there material non-disclosure?
ARCHIE:
Yes.
GEORGE:
The consequence?
ARCHIE:
The extension was set aside.
GEORGE:
Service?
ARCHIE:
Out of time.
GEORGE:
Jurisdiction?
ARCHIE:
None.
GEORGE:
Five pages.
ARCHIE:
Five pages. Yes.