(1989)1989March24 (SAW1DES,J.) UNIVERSALEXPORTANDIMPORTS.A., Plaintiffs, v.
- M/V«MAVROTISSA.FLYINGTHEFLAG OFCYPRUS, THEIR OWNERSAND/OR THEIR SHIPOWNERS
- MODESTMARITIMECO.LTD.,
- ARGO-PACIFICS.A.ASCHARTERERS, Defendants. (AdmiraltyAction No. 27/88). Civil Procedure — Writ of Summons —Service —Extention of time withinwhich it willbe effected —An Application to thateffectfiled afterexpirationofone yearasfrom thefilingofthe writof summons cannotbe granted — TheCivilProcedure Rules, 0.4 r.
- The principle applied by the Court sufficiently appear in the hereinabove headnote. 5 Applicationdismissed. Application. Ex-parte application by plaintiffs for extension of time to effect service. Th. Thoma forA. Poetis,for applicants-plaintiffs. SAWIDESJ.gavethefollowing decision.Counselfor plaintiffs in the above action has filed an application for extension of time for service of the writ of summons on defendants 1and 3 for a period of twomonths whichwas fixed for hearing today. 15 Plaintiffs' claim in the action is, according to the writ of summons, for the sum of $700,000.- as damages for breach of contractforthetransport ofgoodsbydefendant 1 ship.The action was filed on the 15th March,
- Service was effected on defendant 2whoentered anappearance intheaction.Theaction 20 176 10 1C.L.R. Universal Exportv.M.V. Mavrotissa SavvidcsJ. wasadjourned for today forservice on defendants 1and 3 but so farthey have not been served. Counsel forplaintiffs filedthepresentapplication prayingforan orderof the Court extending the time for serviceon defendants 1 5 and3 for aperiod oftwo months. 0.4, r.l of the CivilProcedure Rulesprovides as follows: 10 15 «
- No writ of summons shall be in force for more than 12 months from the day of itsissueincluding that day;but ifany defendant named inithasnot been served, the plaintiff may, before the 12months expire, apply foran ordertorenew the writ; and the Court, if satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made to serve such defendant, or for other good reasons, may order that the writ be renewed for six months from the date,of such renewal inclusive, and so from time to time during thecurrency oftherenewed writ...... The writ of summons in the present case having been filed on 15th March, 1988 and having not been served on defendants 1 and 3 has by now expired and ceased to be in force against defendants 1and3 under theprovisionsof0.4, r.1once no order 20 hasbeen made for itsrenewal. Inthe EnglishRules of Court (seeAnnual Practice, 1960, p.92) inthe notesunder 0.8, r.l which isthe rule corresponding to 0.4, r.l of our Civil Procedure Ruleswe read the following: 25 «If the writ is not renewed but is served after the twelve months,thedefendant should applytosetitaside,0.12,r.30; D.C.P.267;cf. Hamp v.Warren, 12L.J. Ex.215», Bearinginmindthefactthatthewritofsummonshasexpiredas againstdefendants 1and3andoncenoapplication foritsrenewal has so far been made I have come to the conclusion that the 30 application cannot be granted. Intheresulttheapplicationisherebydismissedwithnoorderfor costs. Application dismissed withno order orto costs. 177