Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Electronic Service
SERVICE POINTS 34:  IS SERVICE BY EMAIL IS STILL VALID -  IF IT SITS IN THE RECIPIENT'S SPAM BOX?

SERVICE POINTS 34: IS SERVICE BY EMAIL IS STILL VALID – IF IT SITS IN THE RECIPIENT’S SPAM BOX?

April 21, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Electronic service,, Members Content, Serving documents

There is an ongoing consultation process about the use of email in civil procedure.  It is now commonplace, almost universal.  However what is the situation where the email, carrying important notification, lands inside the recipient’s spam box? That is the…

WHEN HAS A PARTY CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL?  IS A FAILURE TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONSENT IN ADVANCE FATAL TO VALID SERVICE?

WHEN HAS A PARTY CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL? IS A FAILURE TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONSENT IN ADVANCE FATAL TO VALID SERVICE?

August 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents

We are carrying on with the review of the appeal judgment that considered key issues in relation to service by electronic means.  Here the judge considered whether the claimant’s failure to obtain the defendant’s specific consent prior to service rendered…

WHAT TIME IS SERVICE BY EMAIL DEEMED TO ARRIVE ON "THE SAME WORKING DAY"? AN ISSUE THAT HAD IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES IN THIS CASE

WHAT TIME IS SERVICE BY EMAIL DEEMED TO ARRIVE ON “THE SAME WORKING DAY”? AN ISSUE THAT HAD IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES IN THIS CASE

August 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Serving documents

We are returning to look again at the case considered in the previous post.  This time honing in on the error that was made initially in relation to the time for service of a notice of discontinuance.  The District Judge…

CLAIMANT FAILS TO SERVE CLAIM FORM PROPERLY IN £10 MILLION CASE: A PARTY "COURTING DISASTER" HAD BROUGHT THIS SITUATION ON THEMSELVES.

CLAIMANT FAILS TO SERVE CLAIM FORM PROPERLY IN £10 MILLION CASE: A PARTY “COURTING DISASTER” HAD BROUGHT THIS SITUATION ON THEMSELVES.

July 22, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Electronic service,, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

We see a classic mistake as to service of the claim form in the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in LSREF 3 Tiger Falkirk Ltd I S.a.r.l & Anor v Paragon Building Consultancy Ltd [2021] EWHC 2063 (TCC). The claimant…

SERVICE BY EMAIL: WHO ARE YOU SERVING? A POINT TO WATCH

SERVICE BY EMAIL: WHO ARE YOU SERVING? A POINT TO WATCH

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Members Content, Serving documents

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…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.