SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE TIME FOR SERVICE AND THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: ESSENTIAL POINTS BEFORE THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST
In an earlier post I described the work done on a recent course when delegates developed checklists designed to avoid problems in key areas of civil procedure. I was planning to put the checklists up individually. However in social media…
THE COURT SERVICE AND THE "SECRET STATE": ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM "LEGAL CHAP"
A blog post yesterday highlighted the problems that solicitors had been having with some courts insisting that there was a “secret” letter that meant Part 8 applications could not be issued for minor approval applications. After considerable delay it was…
WHAT IS THE DATE OF SERVICE? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DEEMED” DATE OF SERVICE AND THE “EFFECTED” DATE OF SERVICE
T & L SUGARS LTD V TATE & LYLE INDUSTRIES LTD [2014] EWHC 1066 Problems with service and the date of service continue to abound. They have always been subject to a much stricter regime. In particular the date of…
DELAYING SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: “DICING WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH”: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLAIMANT BUILDING PROBLEMS FOR ITSELF
There are real dangers in leaving service of the claim form until the last moment. The Lincolnshire case considered here exemplifies the problems. . The judge pulled no punches in relation to the risks being run by those who…
SANCTIONS: EXTENDING TIME AND DISPUTING THE JURISDICTION: PART 11 AND THE MITCHELL CRITERIA
The Mitchell criteria were considered by Mr Justice Blair in S.E.T. Select Engineering GMBH –v- F&M Bunkering Ltd [2014] EWHC 192 (Comm). There are some interesting observations about whether relief from sanctions applies when an application to dispute jurisdiction is…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLAIMANT COMING TO GRIEF
Prior to the Mitchell decision the easiest way for a claimant to come to grief on a procedural issue was to make a mistake with service of the claim form. The decision Murrills –v- Berlanda [2014] EWCA Civ 6 shows…
SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 4: BE CAREFUL WHEN AGREEING VARIATIONS OF THE DIRECTIONS
One issue that has arisen consistently since the Mitchell decision in particular is whether the parties can agree to vary directions. The answer is far from simple. THE RULES The rules are always a good place to start. CPR 2.11…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: MITCHELL: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND A “GOOD” REASON: AND SO TO BED: A LOOK AT THE CASE LAW
In Mitchell the Court of Appeal stated that a court should normally consider relief from sanctions in a “non-trivial” case if there were good reasons and referred to the case law relating to extending time for service of the…
CAN A STRUCK OUT CLAIMANT ISSUE AGAIN? EXERCISE OF THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION AFTER A FIRST ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED.
One of the “open” questions following the Mitchell decision is whether a claimant refused relief from sanctions can issue again. That is an open question (which will be considered at another time). Here we look at the court’s approach to…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND CPR 3.9: TWO CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WAS GRANTED
The issues caused by the new CPR 3.9 have featured many times on this blog. Here we look at two High Court decisions where relief from sanctions was granted. Kesabo –v- African Barrick Gold Plc and (because the full transcript…
EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PART 20 CLAIMS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT TEST?
Applying to extend time for service of the claim form is a practice fraught with danger, even if done prospectively. In Haskew –v- Pannone LLP (and others) the Court of Appeal considered the relevant criteria for granting an extension when…
LITIGATION AFTER JACKSON: A 10 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE
There has been a tremendous change in policy in relation to case management after 1st April 2013. This has already led to major difficulties for some litigators. This post is the first (of what may be many) survival guides for…
SERVICE OF A COPY CLAIM FORM IS NOT GOOD SERVICE: HOW COULD THIS BENEFIT A CLAIMANT?
This post looks at the unusual case of Hills Construction –v- Struth [2013] EWHC 1693 (TCC) which considered issues relating to service of the claim form and extensions of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. The facts…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: FURTHER TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY
The post on “Service Faults” http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/service-faults-and-the-match-is-over/ pointed out one of the traps for the unwary in relation to service of the claim form. However the decision in Bethell Construction –v- Deloitte & Touche [2010] EWHC (Judge Ho… Enjoying this post? Become…
SERVICE, FAULTS AND …. THE MATCH IS OVER
As Wimbledon is underway it is worth reminding ourselves that even apparently minor faults in service can be fatal to an action. This is illustrated by the decision in Venulum Property Investments Ltd –v- Space Architecture Ltd & 9 others …
You must be logged in to post a comment.