Judgment in default had been entered against the defendant after the court had in its own discretion corrected an error in service of the claim form. The form had been served personally in Reykjavik, but that form of service was not allowed in Iceland. Held: The appeal was allowed. Rule 3.10 could not be used … Continue reading Olafsson v Gissurarson: QBD 8 Dec 2006
The claimant had sought an extension of time for service of her claim form in her action for personal injury. The solicitors in error did not include the words ‘claim form’ in their request. The judge had initially held the error was one of drafting not of procedure, and refused rectification. Held: The distinction was … Continue reading Steele v Mooney and others: CA 8 Feb 2005
Whether service of an unsealed amended claim form is good service and, if it is not, whether the failure to serve a sealed claim form is an error of procedure capable of rectification under CPR 3.10. Judges: Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing And Lord Justice Birss Citations: [2022] … Continue reading Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd and Others v Mastercard Incorporated and Others: CA 13 Jan 2022
The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the irregularity proved, but declined to set the order aside. The claimant now said that … Continue reading Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9): CA 17 Dec 2008
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law. Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in default succeeded. The claimant’s applications in respect of CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 were refused. The Civil … Continue reading Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court’s discretion might then be exercised according … Continue reading Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second … Continue reading Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001
The appellant claimed personal injuries. His solicitors issued a claim form within the limitation period, but only served it after the expiry of the four month period after the date of issue within which CPR 7.5 stipulated that the claim had to be served. CPR 7.6 provided that a claimant could apply for an order … Continue reading Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc: CA 2001
The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘ Held: CPR r 83.2 were intended to provide real protection … Continue reading Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers): CA 19 Oct 2016
Where a claim form is served in time but is incorrectly served (in this case on the defendants’ insurers instead of on the defendants themselves), there is no power in the court under CPR 3.10(b) (remedy of errors of procedure) or CPR 6.8 (service by an alternative method) retrospectively to remedy the error by deeming … Continue reading Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc: CA 24 Jan 2001
The claimant issued proceedings requesting the court to return the summons to him for service. In error the court served direct. The defendant argued that the service error made the claim invalid, and in the circumstances out of time. The claimant appealed from a decision in the defendant’s favour. Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘the principal … Continue reading Stoute v LTA Operations Ltd (T/A Lawn Tennis Association): CA 15 May 2014
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Rodger dissenting). Giving notice, for the purposes of … Continue reading Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice): HL 21 Jan 2009
The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by fax. Held: The service had not been valid. The claimant effectively argued for … Continue reading Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others: ComC 19 Jun 2009
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
