SERVICE ON EU-DOMICILED DEFENDANTS: DIFFICULTIES THAT ARISE WITH THE CLOSURE OF THE FOREIGN PROCESS SECTION
I am grateful to barrister James Beeton for drawing my attention to, and giving me permission to cite from, his post on the International Law and Travel Blog “A BIG PROBLEM FOR SERVICE ON EU-DOMICILED DEFENDANTS” THE CLOSURE OF THE FOREIGN…
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…
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: 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…
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…
MYTHS ABOUT PROCEDURE: THE DATE FOR SERVICE IS NOT CALCULATED FROM THE DAY THE COURT RECEIVES THE CLAIM FORM: IT IS CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF “ISSUE”
In an earlier post on limitation myths I recounted how I often received phone calls from worried solicitors who feared they had missed a limitation period. The papers had been received by the court within the period, the date of…
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…
SERVICE ON A NOMINATED SOLICITOR: BE CLEAR WHO YOU REPRESENT: “A THOROUGHLY TECHNICAL POINT”, UNATTRACTIVE, MISCONCEIVED AND “REFLECTS NO CREDIT ON THE INSURERS OR THEIR ADVISERS”
Earlier this week Master McCloud commented upon “a dry and unlovely crop of procedural service issues” in the Masters’ Corridor. These issues may well follow the Masters around. Master Davison sits as a Recorder. In that capacity he decided an…
BLUEBELLS, THE MASTERS’ CORRIDOR AND THE CLAIM FORM: “A DRY AND UNLOVELY CROP OF PROCEDURAL SERVICE ISSUES”
There are numerous cases about service of the claim form on this blog. They are clearly a major issue in the Masters’ Corridor. Witness the opening words of Master McCloud’s judgment in Caretech Community Services Ltd v Oakden & Ors [2017]…
FIRST CLAIM FORM CASE OF THE YEAR: AND THERE'S A BRIGHTSIDE
Every year brings a batch of cases relating to service of the claim form. This year starts with an unusual issue. In Brightside Group Ltd -v- RSM UK Audit LLP [2017] EWHC 6 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker considered issues…
THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: A CASE IN POINT
In PCV -v- The Y Regional Government of X [2014] EWHC 68 (Comm) Mr Justice Hamblen set out, in clear terms, the rigorous nature of the duty to give full and frank disclosure to the court when making a without…