‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 27th March 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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.
Litigation Futures, 23rd March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Nearly Legal, 13th February 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 11th January 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
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) [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
‘A judge has warned against unfairness to litigants in person caused by late service of documents.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th October 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The High Court has issued a warning to lawyers over dumping legal documents on litigants in person (LiPs) at the door of the court.’
Litigation Futures, 6th October 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
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
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Zenith PI Blog, 19th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘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.’
Family Law Week, 8th January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘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.’
Zenith PI Blog, 8th June 0215
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 604 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 137
‘The term “service in accordance with rules of court” in regulation 47F(5) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended, meant that valid service was achieved when the relevant step for service of a claim form, set out in CPR r 7.5(1), was completed within the seven-day time limit prescribed by regulation 47F(1).’
WLR Daily, 20th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A problem frequently arises when, for one reason or another – most frequently the late arrival of the client in a solicitor’s office – the limitation period is nearly up, but one has not got the medical report or one has not got the materials needed for the drafting of the Particulars of Claim or indeed has grave doubts about whether the claim is viable, but plainly proceedings need to be commenced notwithstanding. In those circumstances, it is recognised as the best practice, following CPR 6.4(1)(b), to issue a claim form but to notify the court that the Claimant wishes to serve the Claim Form. If one does not do that, the court will serve the Claim Form automatically, whereas if you undertake to serve it yourself, you will have up to four months within which to serve the Claim Form. During that time, one can ensure that what needs to be done in order to present a coherent and correctly presented claim can be done.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The principles to apply when considering whether to allow an application under 6.15 (service of the CF by alternative method or at an alternative place). The evidence in support must explain the failure to serve.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Ashley and others v Tesco Stores Ltd and others [2015] WLR (D) 11
‘The applicable time limit for service outside the jurisdiction of a claim form on a Scottish registered company, at its registered office in Scotland, where the claimant sought to serve the claim form under section 1139(1) of the Companies Act 2006 was six months from the date of issue of the claim form, as laid down by CPR r 7.5(2).’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024