Deadline day dispute after claimant serves in final moments – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted September 13th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, documents, news, service, time limits by tracey

‘The High Court has made yet another attempt to clarify rules around service of claim after a dispute over deadlines in a personal injury case.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 13th September 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council – WLR Daily

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 430

‘The freeholder of a building being redeveloped failed to agree with the local billing authority a date on which the building would be brought into the ratings list. The authority subsequently delivered to the manager of the building a completion notice addressed to “the owner” specifying a date. The manager, who was not authorised to accept legal documents on behalf of the freeholder, scanned the document and e-mailed a copy to the freeholder. When the building was entered onto the ratings list the freeholder appealed on the grounds that the completion notice was invalid and had not been validly served. Before the Court of Appeal the sole issue was the validity of service.’

WLR Daily, 15th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Southwark LBC v Akhtar Upper Tribunal [2017] UKUT 150 (LC) – Tanfield Chambers

‘The Upper Tribunal reversed decisions from the First Tier Tribunal in respect of the validity of estimated service demands, the requirements to prove the service of a notice under section 20B in light of the incorporation of section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in the lease, and whether a tenant had waived the Landlord’s non-compliance with service charge mechanism of the lease by conduct.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Unregistered barrister allowed to serve claim for LiP – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 24th, 2017 in barristers, documents, judges, litigants in person, news, service, third parties by sally

‘A litigant in person has been allowed to serve their claim through an unregistered barrister, despite protestations it was unlawful.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 22nd May 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Elim Court RTM v Avon Freeholds Ltd [2014] UKUT 0397 – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 7th, 2017 in company law, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service by sally

‘In 5 conjoined appeals the Court of Appeal considered whether there had been a failure to comply with the statutory procedural provisions and the consequences thereof.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 27th March 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Master validates party’s defective delivery of part 36 withdrawal because of new discount rate – Litigation Futures

Posted March 24th, 2017 in news, part 36 offers, personal injuries, service by sally

‘A High Court master has allowed a party’s bid to withdraw a part 36 offer ahead of the new discount rate coming into force on Monday, even though they used a defective method to deliver it.

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd March 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Who knows where? – service and the Land Registry – Nearly Legal

Posted February 14th, 2017 in appeals, land registration, news, regulations, service by sally

‘Service of notices, claims etc on ‘last known address’ can be a bit of a thorny issue. Not least the question of the extent of reasonable inquiries to find the missing person before the ‘last known address’ can be relied on for service.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 13th February 2017

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Claim form served late but dismissal application rejected – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted January 12th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, delay, news, service by tracey

‘The High Court has dismissed a defendant firm’s attempt to have a claim thrown out after a key form was served late. Mr Justice Andrew Baker said London firm Rosling King, representing a broker in an insurance dispute, had served the claim form after the required deadline in June last year.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 11th January 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Finance and Divorce Update November 2016 – Family Law Week

‘Claire Molyneux, Senior Associate and Naomi Shelton, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during October 2016.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 13th November 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Thum v Thum – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, delay, divorce, EC law, law reports, regulations, service by sally

Thum v Thum [2016] EWHC 2634 (Fam)

‘Having issued a divorce petition in the English courts on 26 October 2015 the wife made no attempt to serve the husband until, on 19 January 2016, she sent the papers to the relevant court office for service out of the jurisdiction. A typographical error contained within the details of the husband’s address caused effective service to be further delayed until 27 February 2016. The husband, having issued his own German divorce petition on 19 January 2016, applied to dismiss or stay the wife’s petition on the ground that she had failed “subsequently [to] take the steps required of her to effect service upon the respondent” in accordance with article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels II revised”).’

WLR Daily, 21st October 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Kilker Projects Ltd v Purton (trading as Richwood Interiors) – WLR Daily

Posted October 31st, 2016 in construction industry, contracts, news, repayment, service by sally

Kilker Projects Ltd v Purton (trading as Richwood Interiors) [2016] EWHC 2616 (TCC)

‘The parties entered into an oral construction contract, to which the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 applied. Following completion of the works, a dispute arose as to the sums due in respect of the final account. In a first adjudication, the adjudicator, having held that no valid “payment notice” or “pay less notice” had been served by the employer, ordered it to pay the “notified sum”, as defined by section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in respect of the contractor’s final account application. The employer subsequently paid the judgment sum. In a second adjudication, the adjudicator determined the true value of the final account for the works and directed the contractor to repay the employer a sum found to have been overpaid. On the employer’s application to enforce that decision, the contractor contended that adjudicator had not had jurisdiction to determine the dispute because it had been decided in the earlier adjudication.’

WLR Daily, 22nd September 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Judge issues warning on late service and litigants in person – Local Government Lawyer

Posted October 14th, 2016 in case management, delay, litigants in person, news, practice directions, service by sally

‘A judge has warned against unfairness to litigants in person caused by late service of documents.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 12th October 2016

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

High Court warning to lawyers over fair treatment of litigants in person – Litigation Futures

Posted October 10th, 2016 in case management, delay, litigants in person, news, practice directions, service by sally

‘The High Court has issued a warning to lawyers over dumping legal documents on litigants in person (LiPs) at the door of the court.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 6th October 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in arbitration, contracts, jurisdiction, law reports, service, third parties by sally

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm)

‘The charterer engaged a third party company to arrange contracts which would be concluded in the charterer’s name but performed by the third party. Through the third party, the charterer entered into a contract of affreightment with the owner. The principal contact point between the owner and the charterer was a junior employee at the third party company. When a dispute arose the owner appointed an arbitrator and e-mailed their notice of arbitration to the third party’s employee, calling on the charterer to appoint their arbitrator. The charterer having not responded, the owner’s arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, proceeded as the sole arbitrator and made an award in favour of the owner. The charterer applied, pursuant to section 72(1)(b)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for a declaration that the award had been made without jurisdiction, on the ground that the third party’s employee had not had authority to accept service of notice of commencement of arbitration proceedings on the charterer’s behalf and that service on him had not been in accordance with section 76 of the 1996 Act. The owner contended that the employee had had actual implied authority and/or ostensible authority to receive notice of arbitration on the charterer’s behalf.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Out of time and out of luck: extending time for service out of the jurisdiction – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The recent decision of Cox J in Foran v Secret Surgery Ltd and others is a salutary tale emphasising the strict approach of the courts to applications to extend time for service of the claim form. Here, the fact that service had to be effected out of the jurisdiction did not avail the claimant, with the result that her claim was time-barred against three of the four defendants.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Practical advice on forfeiture – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Don’t Assume you can Serve the Solicitors! – Zenith PI Blog

Posted April 19th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, news, service, solicitors by sally

‘The Defendants appealed against a master’s order that service of a claim form by the Claimants on their solicitors amounted to good service. The Claimants applied for service by an alternative method under CPR 6.15.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 19th April 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

High Court Confirms that the Insolvency Rules Can Waive Defects in Service of a Bankruptcy Petition – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 24th, 2016 in bankruptcy, news, regulations, service by sally

‘The detailed procedural requirements of the Insolvency Rules 1986 make inadvertent breach a perpetual possibility. Debtors often try to take steps to frustrate the process, and may rely on such breaches to do so. A common tactic is to evade personal service. The Court is therefore faced with a need to balance the protections these procedural requirements establish against the possibility of their exploitation by unscrupulous debtors.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2016

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

The Race to Court under EU Brussels II: A New Approach? – Family Law Week

Posted January 8th, 2016 in conflict of laws, divorce, EC law, news, service, time limits by tracey

‘Stuart Clark, a solicitor at The International Family Law Group LLP, reports on a recent Irish case which could have important implications for the priority of divorce proceedings in international cases.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 8th January 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Relief from sanctions- Be sensible or be prepared to pay – Zenith PI Blog

Posted June 9th, 2015 in delay, news, sanctions, service, striking out by tracey

‘Viridor Waste Management Ltd v Veolia ES Ltd [2015] (unreported)
The Claimant was awarded costs on the indemnity basis when the Defendant had taken unreasonable advantage of the Claimant’s late service of its particulars of claim in the hope of obtaining a windfall strike-out when it was obvious that relief from sanctions was appropriate.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 8th June 0215

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com