Case Digest: AAA v BBB and others [2025] EWHC 1647 (Comm)

<span class="news-text_italic-underline"><center>Judgment Date: 30 June 2025</center></span>

‍

<span class="news-text_medium">Worldwide freezing order discharged due to expired arbitration claim form and failure to meet extension requirements</span>

‍

Background

In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">AAA v BBB and others [2025] EWHC 1647 (Comm)</span>, the High Court considered an application arising from arbitration proceedings seated in Latvia. The claimant had obtained a worldwide freezing order (“<span class="news-text_medium">WWFO</span>”) at a without notice hearing on 7 February 2025. However, the arbitration claim form underpinning the order had already expired on 17 January 2025, one month after its issue, in accordance with CPR 62.4(2).

The claimant later applied for an extension of time for service on 9 April 2025 and an order was granted on the papers on 16 April 2025, some 13 weeks after expiry of the arbitration claim form.

Decision

The High Court discharged the WWFO, set aside the claim form and annulled the extension of time. Henshaw J found that the claimant had not met the strict requirements of CPR 7.6(3), which governs retrospective extensions of time for service. The court highlighted three main failings:

• The claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form prior to its expiration.
• The application for an extension had not been made promptly.
• Material non-disclosures had been made, including a failure to disclose expiry of the claim form at the WWFO hearing and to draw attention to CPR 7.6(3) when seeking the extension.

Interpretation of CPR 62.4

The claimant argued CPR 62.4(2) gave the court wider discretion to extend time for service in arbitration claims, and that, in any case, the one-month service period should not apply when serving abroad. Both arguments were rejected. Henshaw J clarified that CPR 62.4(2) modifies but does not replace CPR 7.5 and 7.6 and there is no basis in either the rules or case law to treat service abroad differently.

The judge also dismissed the claimant’s suggestion that it was reasonable to wait until after the WWFO application before serving the claim form. CPR 7.6(3)(b) requires genuine inability to serve despite reasonable steps, not a tactical decision to delay service.

Implications

This judgment confirms the High Court’s strict approach to compliance with procedural time limits, even in arbitration-related claims. It underscores the importance of ensuring that claim forms are valid and served within the prescribed period, and of making full and frank disclosure when seeking interim relief such as WWFOs. Failure to do so risks undermining both the substantive claim and any interim orders obtained.

‍