Search Results for: Civil Procedure Rules 6.9

Click the case name for better results:

Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley: ChD 19 Aug 2005

The court allowed the appellant’s application to dispense with service of a claim form under the rule. The High Court became seised of the matter as at 19 January 2005. Further directions were given. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith Citations: [2005] EWHC 1880 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 6.9 Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley: ChD 19 Aug 2005

Varsani v Relfo Ltd: CA 27 May 2010

The defendant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He said that he lived in Kenya, and the claimant had failed first to apply for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The claimant had served notice of the proceedings at premises owned by the defendant … Continue reading Varsani v Relfo Ltd: CA 27 May 2010

Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but served only eventually made with letters claimed to be equivocal. The question was what constituted service. … Continue reading Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

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

Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4): CA 19 May 2006

A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking had been in error. After proceedings were then issued in … Continue reading Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4): CA 19 May 2006

Olafsson v Gissurarson: QBD 8 Dec 2006

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

Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

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

Wilkey and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: CA 22 Oct 2002

The applicant’s claim had been dismissed for late service. The defendant had in fact received the documents, but the service appeared deemed to be out of time. The subsequent decisions of Anderton and Godwin meant that the judge’s reasoning no longer applied. Held: In such cases the discretion available to the court under the rules … Continue reading Wilkey and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: CA 22 Oct 2002

Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

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

Infantino v Maclean: QBD 20 Jul 2001

Where a court could no longer grant an extension of time for service of proceedings under rule 7.6, a court could, in appropriate circumstances, achieve the desired result by dispensing with service under rule 6.9. Here the parties had long been in negotiation, and the receiving party knew entirely of the document which was to … Continue reading Infantino v Maclean: QBD 20 Jul 2001

Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice): HL 21 Jan 2009

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