CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 11: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DATE OF ISSUE FOR LIMITATION” PURPOSES AND THE “DATE OF ISSUE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE
There were a number of search terms which led people to this blog today that related to the date of service and date of issue. The confusion is, perhaps, easy to understand The relevant date for limitation purposes is the date…
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM REFUSED: CLAIMANT’S CASE AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT GOES UP IN SMOKE…
In Viner -v- Volkswagen Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2006 (QB) Senior Master Fontaine refused the claimants’ application to extend time for service of the claim form. A link to the judgment is available from the Law Society Gazette article on…
THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: WOODWARD DECISION ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: LEAVING SERVICE LATE IS SIMPLY COURTING DISASTER
There is a brief report on Lawtel this morning showing that the decision in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) has been overturned on appeal. It highlights the dangers of leaving service of the claim form…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: CLAIMANT’S “REASON TO BELIEVE”: A FEW POINTS TO WATCH
In Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the issue of whether a claimant had “reason to believe” that a defendant did not live at the address…
CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: BAD LEGAL ADVICE NOT A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW SERVICE BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD
In Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat AS & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1093 the Court of Appeal considered a claimant’s appeal where the judge had refused to allow an alternative method of service or to dispense with service….
SERVICE ON INSURER ALLOWED WHEN DRIVER COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED: FACT THAT INSURER HAD AN ORDER DECLARING THE POLICY VOID NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE
In Farah v Abdullahi & Ors [2018] EWHC 738 (QB) Master Davison rejected an application by an insurer to set aside an order that allowed service of an unnamed driver upon the insurer. It was irrelevant that the insurer had obtained…
SERVICE BY TEXT: ALLOWED IN AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE
The facts in NPV v QEL & Anor [2018] EWHC 703 (QB) were exceptional. However it does show that in some circumstances the courts will allow service by text. THE CASE The claimant was applying for an injunction to prevent alleged…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AT THE “OLD ADDRESS”: THE HIERARCHY OF MEASURES A CLAIMANT HAS TO TAKE
A search term arrived on this blog today “Service of claim form at old address”. This is an interesting issue to look at following the earlier posts on service. In particular the hierarchy of measures a claimant is required to…
THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: HAVE YOU GOT A SYSTEM? LITIGATING OR WINGING IT?
Do you know the address for service of all your cases? Are you sure? Looking at the decision in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) brings out the point as to how insouciant litigators can be…
SERVICE OF A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT: MURPHY -V- STAPLES RE-VISITED
I am likely to be returning to the judgment of Master Bowles in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) several times on this blog. If the decision is appealed and upheld it is likely to…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANTS HAVE A DUTY UNDER THE CPR TO POINT OUT TECHNICAL ERRORS (OR WHY LIFE HAS SUDDENLY GOT A LOT HARDER FOR DEFENDANT LAWYERS)
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL – SEE THE POST HERE I wrote earlier this week about the “tantalising” judgment of Master Bowles in the case of Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch). At…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A DUTY ON A DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?
It was unlikely that the decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 would put an end to all issues relating to service of the claim form. There is a tantalising judgment* of Master Bowles in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare…
THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS JUST ABOUT TO EXPIRE AND YOU ARE NOT READY: FIVE KEY POINTS FOR WHEN YOU DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH
No matter how hard litigators try (and how many warnings are given) it appears inevitable that, sooner or later, you are going to have a case where the limitation period is about to expire but you are not ready. The…
AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 14th MARCH 2018
The judgment yesterday in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 shows how crucial correct service of the claim form can be. There are dozens of examples on this blog of cases where service with the claim form goes wrong. In an…
12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW
Today is all about service of the claim form. Following on from the Supreme Court decision in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 this morning this is a good time to update your knowledge about basic points of procedure. TWELVE…
BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT
It is rare for issues relating to procedure to reach the Supreme Court. The judgment today in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 concerned the issue of correct service of the claim form. The claimant lost the appeal (albeit…
FIRST CLAIM FORM CASE OF THE YEAR: THE DANGERS OF LEAVING SERVICE UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE
It is the middle of January (bluebells nowhere in sight) and we have already have a claim form case to consider. In Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland [2017] EWHC 3368 (QB) Sir David Eady considered whether service (at the…
SERVICE BY EMAIL: WHO ARE YOU SERVING? A POINT TO WATCH
The judgment in Glencore Agriculture BV v Conqueror Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 2893 highlights a crucial point about service by email. If you are (and are allowed to) serve by email – check that the address being used is the the…
LATE SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: DETAILS OF CLAIM DO NOT CONSTITUTE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
In Chelsea Bridge Apartments Ltd -v- Old Street Homes Ltd (Deputy Master Cousins, 4th September 2017*) Deputy Master Cousins refused the claimants’ application for relief from sanctions in failing to serve Particulars of claim on time. “I find that the…
SERVICE ON SOLICITORS: A REMARKABLE VIEW LEADS TO MAJOR MISTAKE: THE LAW SUMMARISED
I have already written today about the decision in Higgins & Ors v ERC Accountants & Business Advisers Ltd [2017] EWHC 2190 (Ch). I want to isolate one element of that case that relates to the remarkable view that the claimants’ solicitor…