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 should be exercised, if necessary to dispense with formal service. However the doubts which were understandable during the transitional period as the new rules bedded down had now been clarified The rules were intended to be applied strictly and should now be so applied.
Judges:
Simon Brown, Buxton, Carnwath LLJ
Citations:
Times 08-Nov-2002, Gazette 05-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1561, [2003] 1 WLR 1, [2003] 1 WLR 1
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7(1) 6.9
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – 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 . .
Cited by:
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 – Firstdale Ltd v Quinton ComC 5-Aug-2004
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178031