SERVICE POINTS 22: AN APPLICATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WHEN IT WAS SENT BY FIRST CLASS “SIGNED FOR SERVICE”: THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT DID NOT COLLECT IT IS NOT RELEVANT
Here we look at a particular point in relation to the service of an application. The application had been sent by first class “signed for” service at an address given for service by the respondents. The respondents did not receive…
WHEN HAS A PARTY CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL? IS A FAILURE TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONSENT IN ADVANCE FATAL TO VALID SERVICE?
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…
AN ORDER FOR SERVICE BY EMAIL MADE: THERE IS GOOD REASON TO DO SO
In Cohen & Ors v O’Leary & Ors (Re Insolvency Act 1986) [2023] EWHC 1939 (Ch) Louise Hutton KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court), made an order that a defendant could be served by email. “As…
SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS ON A PERSON IN A REFUGE: IMPORTANT GUIDANCE GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
In P (Service on Parent in a Refuge) [2023] EWHC 471 (Fam) Sir Andrew McFarlane considered the difficulties when documents had to be served on someone who resided in a woman’s refuge. Guidance was given in relation to the steps…
A SOLICITOR WHO FILES AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE STAYS ON THE RECORD UNTIL A NOTICE OF CHANGE OR THEY MAKE AN APPLICATION TO BE REMOVED
In Ashley & Anor v Jimenez [2019] EWHC 1806 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh rejected an argument that service on a solicitor who given their address for service in the acknowledgement of service was not good service of an application. For…
DENTON APPLIED WHEN THE OTHER SIDE DOES NOT SHOW UP FOR TRIAL
In Foreman v Williams [2017] EWHC 3370 (QB) Peter Marquand (sitting as a High Court judge) considered the application of the Denton principles in an unusual context. The claimant required relief from sanctions because he was unable to serve documents on…
ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER DECISION ON NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE RESULT OF A “NEGLIGENT OR INCOMPETENT ERROR”
In Higgins & Ors v ERC Accountants & Business Advisers Ltd [2017] EWHC 2190 (Ch) His Honour Judge Pelling (sitting as a High Court judge) considered a number of issues relating to service of the claim form. It is another example…
PROVING SERVICE BY FAX: OPERATOR OF A FAX MACHINE IS A “RESPONSIBLE PERSON”
In a judgment today in LBI EHF -v- RAIFFEISEN ZENTRALBANK ÖSTERREICH AG [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm) Mr Justice Knowles CBE had to consider whether the fact that a party could not find a fax meant that it had not been served. This involved…
You must be logged in to post a comment.