Litigation - Claim service

It is interesting that cases continue to be reported where the approach to dealing with last minute service of a claim form is apparently very relaxed (without the benefit of the full context).  We would suggest: 

• Always go back and check what the Civil Procedure Rules actually say
• Don’t leave service until the last minute
• Consider using multiple methods of service
• When posting (particularly if close to the deadline) take it to an actual post box and take photos with the time in the metadata
• Make a short note of how you have effected service

Court decisions in this area can also depend on how harsh the judge wants to be.  It is simply not worth taking risks.  As is demonstrated by this recent case below, where Master Dagnall has held that claimants failed to take a relevant step for service of their claim form, in time, and refused to grant relief, unravelling these matters can be complex (for which read also "expensive"):

Occupiers of Samuel Garside House V Bellway Homes Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 1579 (KB) (25 June 2024)

Headlines include:

• Service by DX (paragraphs 104 to 113). Delivery of the claim form to the specified DX address would, in principle, have been appropriate for service on the first defendant (the DX address was included on the firm's original notepaper, and subsequent notepaper excluding it had clearly been used in error). However, the claim form had not been served in time (by 4.00 pm on 21 April 2023). It had been left in reception for collection by the DX courier, which was usually after office hours (after 4.00 pm). Leaving the material in reception could not amount to "delivering to … the relevant service provider" under CPR 7.5(1), and collection by the relevant service provider had been after the deadline. Without reaching a conclusion, Master Dagnall observed that the position might have been different if the material had been placed in a box owned by the DX provider (to which, possibly, only the DX provider had a key).
• Electronic service (paragraph 121). Under CPR 7.5, 'Electronic' service comprises 'Sending the e-mail or other electronic transmission'. This must be seen in the context of other parts of CPR 7.5(1) framed in terms of what the serving claimant itself has to do (not what others such as the post office have done).
• Consequences of defective service (paragraphs 145 to 168). Citing Hoddinott v Persimmon [2007] EWCA Civ 1203, Pitalia v NHS [2023] EWCA Civ 657 and R (Koro) v County Court at Central London [2024] EWCA Civ 94, Master Dagnall noted that defective (even no) service does not render a claim or claim form a nullity or cause it to be automatically struck out. It continues in existence unless the court makes an order declining or refusing to exercise jurisdiction (where a consequential striking-out order can be made under CPR 11). Such an order will only be made if there is an acknowledgment of service from a relevant defendant and a subsequent CPR 11 application. Master Dagnall stated that, while only Koro dealt with the need for an acknowledgment of service, it seemed clear from the wording of CPR 11, Hoddinott (paragraph 26) and Koro itself, which was "very highly persuasive", even if this aspect was obiter.

For more information, please contact Ben Holt in our Litigation team on 0117 314 5478.