Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Can retrospective permission for alternative service be obtained to effectively rectify invalid service?
This issue has just been considered in Dunbar Assets v BCP Premier  EWHC 10 (Ch) where, having failed to serve the claim form in accordance with Part 6 and the finding itself outside the limitation period, the claimant sought and gained retrospective
permission for alternative service such that service of a copy of the claim form by email was accepted by a Deputy Master. This considerably watered down the approach set out in Innovatorone that alternative service should be used sparingly.
However, the defendant successfully appealed the Deputy Master’s decision so stopping in its tracks a watering down of the need to comply with the service provisions and preventing the use of alternative service as a means to rectify invalid
During his judgment, Mr John Baldwin QC sitting as a Deputy Judge in the Chancery Division, reiterated the need to ensure that a claim form is served in compliance with the service rules set out in CPR Part 6. The ability to obtain an order for alternative
service for departing from these rules should only be sparingly applied by the courts and certainly not in a case where the claimant's solicitors have simply failed to use the appropriate mechanism for service.
This case serves as a reminder for the following:
if seeking alternative service the guidelines in Innovatorone should be considered and if it is not possible to show a good reason for departing from the CPR Part 6 rules and there is no compelling evidence then an order for alternative service
should not be made
The key issue in this case was that a draft consent order provided for the claim form to be served on the last day for service within the limitation period. There was purported service with a copy of the claim form being emailed with another copy being
put into the DX for delivery overnight.
The defendant's solicitor did not accept this as valid service. Service by email is not a method allowed under the rules and putting a document in the DX comes under deemed service rules such that service does not occur on the day it is put in the DX
but the second business day after that date. The claimant's solicitors made applications for an extension of time (CPR 7.6(3) and/or relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9), they also sought to rely on CPR 3.10, CPR 6.15 and CPR 6.16. The applications came
before a Deputy Master who allowed the application on the basis of CPR 6.15 ie alternative service by email. However, in reaching his decision the Deputy Master:
Mr John Baldwin QC sitting as a Deputy Judge held that the Deputy Master had been wrong to conclude that he should make an order under CPR 6.15 that allowed retrospective alternative service of the claim form by email. He also considered that he would
not exercise his discretion in favour of the claimant in this case. In taking this approach he referred to the guidelines set out in Innovatorone which, though a first instance decision, were considered by the Court of Appeal in Power and no adverse comment was made as to the guidelines (Brown v Innovatorone plc  EWHC 1376, para 40 onwards, Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson  EWCA Civ 898)
Specific comments which arose in this case were:
First, simply because the defendant's solicitors were expecting service did not mean that this would validate invalid service. In this case the defendant was expecting proper service on 3 April 2014, as provided for in a consent order. Instead it received
a copy of the claim form by email and a further copy was put in the DX. A copy of the claim form is insufficient, email was an invalid method of service and putting in the DX did not effect service on the day it was put in the DX
Secondly, the Supreme Court in Abela pointed out that the important purpose of the service of the claim form is to ensure that its contents are communicated to the defendant. In the case before the court the contents had been communicated earlier
through a copy being provided prior to starting the pre-action protocol communications. On that basis was valid service so important in this case. Mr John Baldwin QC considered that it was as communicating the contents is not the only purpose
behind serving the claim form. As set out by the Court of Appeal in Hoddinott there are three purposes to service of the claim form:
i) to notify the Defendant that the Claimant had embarked on the formal process of litigation and to inform him of the nature of the claim,
(ii) to enable the Defendant to participate in the process and have some say in the way in which the claim is prosecuted, and
(iii) to enable the court to control the litigation process.
Mr John Baldwin QC added to this list of three his own view that the purpose was to give certainty to the parties that the CPR had been complied with or for example whether any limitation defences may apply.
(Abela v Baadarani  UKSC 44, Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes  EWCA Civ 1203, at )
Court: Chancery Division, High Court
Judge: Mr John Baldwin QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division
Date of judgment: 12 January 2015
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234