‘A recent case provides clarification and guidance on the issue of service by the courts in contravention of the claimant’s instructions.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The court in Canning v Network Rail [2014] EWHC 2104 (QB) treated an application to rely on supplementary witness evidence as an application for relief from sanctions. The Mitchell considerations therefore came into play.’
Zenith PI Blog, 3rd October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘With the 75th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules (coming into force 1 October 2014), amendments to Practice Direction 21 (Children and Protected Parties) address the inconsistencies between the rules and practice direction in respect of the material that must be served and filed in relation to child/protected party settlement claims.’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd September 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Postal service of a claim form by the court in disregard of the claimant’s request to return the claim form to him so that he could serve it personally, in breach of CPR r 6.4(1)(b), was an “error of procedure”, within rule 3.10, and so did not invalidate service.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Kidd and another [2014] EWHC 847 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 155
‘Where the Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to the High Court under article 31(8) and (9) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for the extension of an interim suspension order, the respondent affected by the order should ordinarily receive a minimum of seven calendar days notice of the application.’
WLR Daily, 26th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge yesterday sought to “reinforce the message that the Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time-wasting procedural points” as it appeared the message from last month’s Summit Navigation ruling “may not yet have been heard”.’
Litigation Futures, 13th March 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In almost every litigated case the parties usually find themselves needing to vary the dates of some directions. This can be done by way of written agreement between the parties and is allowed by CPR 2.11.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
In re C (A Child): [2013] EWCA Civ 1412; [2013] WLR (D) 449
‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the proper approach to be adopted in family proceedings when considering a without notice application for a prohibited steps order and the making of a contact order.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The requirement, laid down under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, that rules affecting immigrants be laid before Parliament before they became lawful applied to rules which a migrant had to fulfil as a condition of his obtaining leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and did not apply to rules which an educational establishment had to fulfil before it was entitled to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area.”
WLR Daily, 17th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Abela v Baadarain [2013] UKSC 44; [2013] WLR (D) 251
“The court’s power, when the parties were within the jurisdiction, to make an order under CPR r 6.15(2), that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place was good service, was applicable to claims where the defendant was outside the jurisdiction in a state in respect of which no relevant bilateral convention on service of judicial documents existed.”
WLR Daily, 26th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Abela and others (Appellants) v. Baadarani (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 44 | UKSC 2012/0023 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
“A photocopy of a sealed claim form sent with a letter to the defendants’ solicitors for the purposes of document exchange was not proper service of the claim form for the purposes of CPR r 6.3(b).”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The High Court has sent the first sign of a hardened stance against missed deadlines since the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) came into force.”
Litigation Futures, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd: [2012] EWCA Civ 1657; [2012] WLR (D) 379
“Service of a party wall award pursuant to section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 was effective from the date the award was received or deemed to have been received by a party.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1351 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 162
“Service of a surveyor’s award sent by post, pursuant to section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996, was effected when the award was consigned to the post.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The High Court has ruled that legal claims can be served through Facebook after uncertainty was expressed about the postal address of one of defendants, according to a newspaper report.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“The 14-day period allowed to a detained mental patient to lodge an application with the Mental Health Review Tribunal as provided by section 66 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and rule 32(1) the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 was not to be considered to have expired where, though sent by fax on the last working day within the period, it was not in fact received by the tribunal until the next working after an intervening holiday period during which the 14-day time limit had expired.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
SSL International plc and another v TTK LIG Ltd and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1170; [2011] WLR (D) 299
“Service of a claim form on the director of a foreign company during his temporary visit to England did not constitute personal service of the claim form on the company, within CPR r 6.5(3)(b), where the company was neither resident nor carried on business in England and all its directors were resident overseas when the proceedings were purportedly served.”
WLR Daily, 19th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Proceedings brought by Peñarroja Fa (Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09); [2011] WLR (D) 98
“A duty entrusted by a court, in relation to specific matters within the context of a dispute before it, to a professional who had been appointed as a court expert translator constituted the provision of services for the purposes of article 50EC of the EC Treaty (now article 57FEU of the FEU Treaty)). The activities of court experts in the field of translation did not constitute activities which were connected with the ‘exercise of official authority’ for the purposes of the first paragraph of article 45EC of the EC Treaty (now article 51FEU of the FEU Treaty). Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precluded (a) national legislation under which (i) enrolment in a register of court expert translators was subject to conditions concerning qualifications but (ii) the interested parties could not obtain knowledge of the reasons for the decision taken and that decision was not open to effective judicial scrutiny enabling its legality to be reviewed, inter alia, with regard to its compliance with the requirement under European Union law that the qualifications obtained and recognised in other member states had to have been properly taken into account; and (b) a requirement that no person might be enrolled in a national register of court experts as a translator unless he could prove that he had been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a particular national court, where such a requirement was found to prevent the qualification obtained by a person and recognised in that another member state from being duly taken into account for the purposes of determining whether that qualification might attest to skills equivalent to those normally expected of a person who had been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by the member state in which the expert was seeking enrolment. The duties of court expert translators, as discharged by experts enrolled in a national register were not covered by the definition of ‘regulated profession’ set out in article 3(1)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36/EC of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p 22).”
WLR Daily, 17th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024