In the course of a long dispute, the defendant’s solicitors had indicated that they would accept service of proceedings. Just before the limitation period expired, the papers were served directly in the client. The defendants solicitors said that this was invalid service, and that later service out of time could not revive the claim.
Held: The nature of the claim had changed (it had been assigned) since the solicitors had given the indication, and the papers served direct were in respect of a different claim, for which an indication had not been given. The service stood. The notice of assignment of the debt was valid though not dated.
Judges:
Mr Justice Colman
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1926 (Comm), Times 27-Oct-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 6.5(4), Law of Property Act 1925 136
Citing:
Applied – Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust CA 23-Jan-2001
The requirement is that documents must be served at the address nominated for this purpose by the prospective defendant under the rules. Where a solicitor was so nominated, it was not open to the claimant to serve papers at a different address. In . .
Cited – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Marchant v Morton Down and Co 1901
An assignment of a debt by a liquidator need not be by deed, any signed writing will be enough. . .
Cited – W F Harrison and Co v Burke 1956
If a notice of assignment of a debt describes the assignment by reference to a wrong date, the notice is invalid because it has described a non-existent document. . .
Cited – Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelvis Construction Co Ltd 1969
A notice of an assignment of a debt need not state the date of the assignment. . .
Cited – Holt v Heatherfield Trust 1942
Consideration is not required to support a statutory assignment of a debt under section 136 of the 1925 Act and the lack of consideration does not need to be made good by deed. . .
Cited – The Kelo 1985
A notice of assignment of a debt under the section need not be by deed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199882
