Site icon swarb.co.uk

Hastie and Jenkerson v McMahon: CA 11 Jan 1990

The Court accepted that service of a list of documents by fax was valid service for the purposes of a consent order in civil proceedings under the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Woolf LJ said: ‘. . are there any legal reasons why advantage should not be taken of the progress in technology which fax represents to enable documents to be served by fax, assuming that this is not contrary to any of the Rules of the Supreme Court? The purpose of serving a document is to ensure that its contents are available to the recipient and whether the document is served in the conventional way or by fax the result is exactly the same. [Counsel] on behalf of the defendant submits that what is transmitted by fax is not the document but an electronic message. However, this submission fails to distinguish between the method of transmission and the result of the transmission by fax. What is produced by the transmission of the message by fax, admittedly using the recipient’s machine and paper, is the document which the other party intended should be served. . What is required is that a legible copy of the document should be in the possession of the party to be served. This fax achieves. I therefore conclude that service by fax can be good service subject to any requirement of the order requiring service of a particular document and any requirement of the Rules of the Supreme Court.’

Woolf LJ , Glidewell LJ , Lloyd LJ
[1990] 1 WLR 1575
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedUKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670802

Exit mobile version