FIRST CLAIM FORM CASE OF THE YEAR: SERVICE WITHOUT A SEAL IS NOT GOOD SERVICE BUT CPR 3.10 SAVED THE CLAIMANT
It took until the 31st January for the first claim form of the case of the year to come up (a bit later than normal, still there’s 11 months left). This time it was good news for the claimant. In…
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS AND CPR 3.10: CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT
The judgment in Baxendale-Walker v APL Management Ltd [2018] EWHC 543 (Ch) covers several issues relating to procedure. Here I want to look at the assertions made in relation to procedural defects. The judge held that some procedural errors by the…
WITHDRAWAL OF PART 36 OFFER BY EMAIL: CPR 3.10 SAVES THE CLAIMANT
The change in the discount rate meant that many claimants withdraw Part 36 offers they had made. This has led to the question – is an email withdrawing an offer sufficient. I am grateful to Dominic Graham from Holmes &…
CPR 3.10 STOPS A CLAIM FROM SINKING: USING THE WRONG FORM NOT FATAL TO AN ACTION
In LD Commodities Rice Merchandising LLC -v- The Owners and/or Charterers of the Vessel Styliani Z [2015 ] EWHC 3060 (Admlty) Mr Justice Teare considered a case where the claimant used the wrong form to issue an action, this could…
COULD CPR 3.10 BE THE LITIGATORS NEW BEST FRIEND? THE IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRAL PETROLEUM CONSIDERED (AND THEY ARE ENORMOUS)
In Integral Petroleum SA -v- SCU Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) Popplewell held that the provisions of CPR 3.10 meant that service of the particulars of claim by e-mail could be good service and the default judgment entered thereafter…