Practice – Service. The claimant brought a claim for trade mark infringement. After more than 18 months had elapsed, there was no significant progress in the action. The Chancery Division held that there was little evidence to support the claimant's application, under CPR 7.6(3), for a retrospective extension of time to serve a claim form, which a judge had found not to have been served. Further, the claimant had not shown sufficient good reason to engage CPR 6.15 or CPR 6.27. It followed that the court's discretion would not be exercised to make a retrospective order under the CPR.