Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor S.A. [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor S.A.

[2026] EWHC 232 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court

Before Mr Justice Eyre | Heard 28 January 2026 | Handed down 13 February 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Setting aside an extension for service outside the jurisdiction

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor S.A. [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Justice Eyre
Hearing Date: 28 January 2026
Judgment Date: 13 February 2026
Case No: HT-2024-000436

Lloyds obtained without-notice permission to serve French company Accor S.A. outside the jurisdiction and a 91-day extension of the claim-form deadline. It served one day before the extended deadline. Accor applied to set aside the extension and sought a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction, relying on lack of sufficient reason and non-disclosure of limitation consequences (paragraphs 1-5).

Central Legal Test: An extension under CPR 7.6 required sufficient reason, with focus on steps taken to serve within the original period and prejudice from losing an arguable limitation defence. On a without-notice application, Lloyds also had to give full and frank disclosure of material adverse points, including expiry of primary limitation during the requested extension (paragraphs 50-65).

Claim

Lloyds alleged deceit, unlawful-means conspiracy and inducing breach in relation to a Glasgow hotel design dispute, claiming just under £181 million plus exemplary damages (paragraphs 6-10).

Service Timetable

The claim form issued on 20 December 2024, originally expired on 20 June 2025, and was served in France on 18 September after the ex parte extension (paragraphs 1-2).

2. Procedural History

Set-aside Application

Accor accepted that service out was otherwise appropriate; the dispute concerned only the extension and non-disclosure (paragraphs 3-5).

Limitation Dispute Reserved

Whether section 32 postponed limitation required evidence and could not be finally decided on this application (paragraphs 52-58).

3. Defendant's Position

Accor said Lloyds gave no good reason for extending the claim-form deadline and failed to tell the ex parte judge that primary limitation would expire during the extension, depriving Accor of a live defence.

Delay

It relied on periods of inaction and the absence of any reason why the claim form itself, distinct from the Particulars, could not be served within time (paragraphs 50-51 and 58-59).

Material Non-disclosure

It said the court was not told of the August 2025 primary limitation expiry or the contested basis for section 32 postponement (paragraphs 60-64).

4. Claimant's Position

Lloyds said the extension was justified by overseas service and preparation, and that no limitation defence was lost because fraud or deliberate concealment postponed time under section 32.

Section 32

Lloyds said it first learned the true copyright position on 30 June 2021, so the claim remained in time (paragraphs 53-57).

Merits and Value

It relied on the arguable merits, very high value and importance of the claim (paragraph 59).

5. Court's Analysis

No Reason for Claim-form Extension

The claimant's explanations mainly concerned the Particulars. It gave no good reason why the originating claim form itself could not be served within the original six months (paragraphs 50-51).

Arguable Limitation Defence

Primary limitation expired by August 2025. Section 32 raised fact-sensitive issues about concealment and knowledge and was not bound to succeed, so the extension deprived Accor of an arguable defence (paragraphs 52-58).

Diligence Insufficient

The court gave renewed weight to the claimant's delay and inaction because limitation had expired during the extension. Merits and value did not supply a sufficient basis (paragraphs 58-59).

Material Point Omitted

The ex parte evidence did not explain the impending limitation expiry or section 32 basis. Though not deliberate, the omission put the court on a false basis and independently required set-aside (paragraphs 60-64).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant and Applicant (Accor S.A.) succeeded.

Result: The extension was set aside. The claim form had therefore been served out of time, and Accor was entitled to a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the claim (paragraph 65). The Claimant and Respondent (Lloyds Developments Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The issued proceedings against Accor S.A. could not continue. Any fresh action would face the limitation dispute, including Lloyds' section 32 case.

Extension Set Aside

The 91-day extension did not survive Accor's inter partes challenge (paragraph 65).

No Jurisdiction

Out-of-time service meant the court lacked jurisdiction over this claim (paragraph 65).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Claim Form Distinct

Difficulty preparing Particulars does not itself justify extending time to serve the claim form.

Limitation Prejudice

Loss of an arguable limitation defence is a potent factor, even where the claimant may later establish statutory postponement.

Without-notice Disclosure

The applicant must disclose adverse limitation timing and the evidential basis for saying the defence will fail.

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Serve the claim form first and seek time for Particulars separately if needed. On an ex parte extension, state every limitation date and fairly present the opponent's possible defence.

For Defendants:
On return, audit the applicant's chronology, actual service steps and limitation disclosure. Challenge reasons that concern pleading preparation rather than claim-form service.

General Practice Points:
High value and arguable merits do not excuse lack of service diligence or incomplete ex parte disclosure.

Legal Disclaimer

This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.