SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM UNDER THE ELECTRONIC PILOT: SERVICE BY EMAIL OF AN ELECTRONICALLY SEALED COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM IS GOOD SERVICE

CPR PD510 provides for the electronic issue of a claim form.   The claim form will be sealed electronically.  What are the consequences for service of the claim form when service takes place by email? This issue was considered (albeit on an obiter basis) in the case we are looking at today.

“… because CPR PD51O is engaged, at most, the court applies an electronic seal to the Claim Form and then makes the sealed, electronic version of the Claim Form (and Particulars of Claim) available to the claimant to serve. Therefore, in cases proceeding under the electronic working pilot, in my judgment, service of an electronically sealed copy of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim is good service.”

KEY PRACTICE POINT

It is important to note that this was, essentially, an obiter finding, the case being struck out on other grounds. It is likely that cases served under PD510 will be treated differently, however it is prudent to be careful in relation to these issues.

THE CASE

Cheung v Office of Intercollegiate Services & Ors [2025] EWHC 1109 (KB), District Judge Maddison.

The claimant brought an action against the defendants.  The defendants sought to strike the action out on various grounds, and the strike out applications were successful. However on ground on which a defendant was not successful was in the argument that it had never been properly served with a sealed claim form.

THE ARGUMENT IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM FORM

The claimant had served on solicitors who had nominated solicitors.  The original documents were served incorrectly and then served again, by email, on nominated solicitors who had then stated that they accepted service by email.

These defendants argued that a copy of the sealed claim form had been sent and there was not, therefore, good service.

THE JUDGMENT ON THE SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ISSUE

The judge did not agree with the defendant’s argument on this issue.

“70. I will deal with this issue in much shorter order, having already concluded that the claim against Hewitsons should be struck out on several bases. The argument advanced by Ms Evans is that Hewitsons were, at best, served with a copy of a Claim Form and Particulars of Claim – not the original versions – on 25 September 2024. Prior to that, attempts had been made to serve by e-mail, without Hewitsons (or their solicitors, Beale & Co) having agreed to be served in that way. There was also an attempt at service by post on Hewitsons directly (on 20 September 2024) after Beale & Co had been nominated to accept service.

71. It is the case that, where a party nominates a solicitor to accept service, service must be effected on the solicitor (CPR r. 6.7(1)). Similarly, service can only be effected by electronic means, such as e-mail, where the party to be served has given a sufficient, written indication that they agreed to be served in that way (CPR PD 6A, paragraph 4.1). The nub of the issue, it seems to me, is whether there was valid service on 25 September 2024. Ms Evans submits that the documents served on that date were not originals, relying on Ideal Shopping v Mastercard [2022] 1 WLR 1541. Essentially, she argues that the documents served were demonstrably copy documents.

72. This is a claim which falls under CPR PD 51O – the electronic working pilot scheme – which provides:

Electronic sealing
7.1 When the Court issues a Claim Form, appeal notice or other originating application which has been submitted using Electronic Working and accepted by the Court, the Court will electronically seal the Claim Form, appeal notice or originating application with the date on which the relevant Court fee was paid and this shall be the issue date, as per the provisions of paragraph 5.4.
7.2 The electronic seal may differ in appearance to the seal used on paper.
Service
8.1 The Court will electronically return the sealed and issued Claim Form, appeal notice or originating application to the party’s Electronic Working online account and notify the party that it is ready for service.

73.

74. In Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth [2013] EWHC 1693 (TCC) at [38-41] onwards, Ramsey J. said:

“40. In my judgment the effect of those two rules [CPR r. 7.2(1) and 2.6(1)] is that, as a general rule, a Claim Form is the document issued by the court on which the court seal is placed. When therefore CPR 6.3(1) states that “A Claim Form may… be served by any of the following methods…”, I consider that, again as a general rule, it is the document issued and sealed by the court which is the relevant Claim Form.”
In Ideal Shopping, relied upon by Ms Evans, Sir Julian Flaux said:

“137. … I agree with the respondents that the starting point under the CPR , in a case where Electronic Working does not operate, is that the general rule is that the Claim Form must be sealed before it can be validly served …”

75. Thus, normally, valid service must be service of the original Claim Form sealed by the court. Typically, where a claimant elects to effect service, they will send enough copies of the Claim Form to the court to be sealed, and then will serve each defendant with a separately sealed Claim Form. Here, however, because CPR PD51O is engaged, at most, the court applies an electronic seal to the Claim Form and then makes the sealed, electronic version of the Claim Form (and Particulars of Claim) available to the claimant to serve. Therefore, in cases proceeding under the electronic working pilot, in my judgment, service of an electronically sealed copy of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim is good service.

76. Accordingly, I reject Hewitsons’ argument about invalid service and refuse the application to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction on that basis.”