Kenneth Allison Ltd v AE Limehouse Ltd: HL 1992

If one party, knowing that another wishes to serve process upon him, requests or authorises the other to do so in a particular way which is outside the Rules and the other does so, then, unless the Rules themselves prohibit consensual service, the party so served cannot be heard to say that the service was not valid. In the circumstances of the present case the validity of the service would have been affirmed under Montgomery. Subsequent changes in the Rules of the Supreme Court have not introduced a prohibition of consensual service outside the Rules.


Lords Bridge, Lowry, Templeman and Jauncey


[1992] 2 AC 105


Companies Act 1985 725(1)


England and Wales


CitedMontgomery, Jones and Co v Liebenthal and Co 1898
The court rejected the argument that the rules of court prohibited an agreement between the parties to adopt an arrangement for service which did not comply with the rules. . .

Cited by:

CitedCranfield 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.182215