Service of proceedings — a defendants' guide
In Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth, the court held that sending a photocopy of a sealed claim form to the defendant’s solicitors was not proper service. Service within the jurisdiction under CPR 6.3 must be of an original claim form issued and sealed by court. Comments suggesting the contrary in Weston v Bates were read as referring to service outside the jurisdiction. The only exception is where the claim form is served by fax or email in accordance with Practice Direction 6A (Asia Pacific (HK) Ltd v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd).
Those on the receiving end of claims within the jurisdiction need to be able to work out whether service is valid or whether it is worth contesting jurisdiction on the ground that service is invalid. If the claimant has left it until the end of the limitation period to issue, taking a point on invalid service could dispose of the claim for good…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why