- First English European enforcement order decision (Chachani Misti y Pichu Pichu v Hostplanet and Finn Grimpe)
- Practical implications
- What is meant by uncontested?
- Proof of service and the impact of serving by email
- Can non compliance with the service requirement be cured?
- Difference between Brussels I regime and the EEO
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Master Matthews, in the Chancery Division, considered the application of article 18(2) of the European enforcement order for uncontested claims regulation (EC) 805/2004 (EEO regulation). This case involved a second defendant who was served by email as their physical address was unknown. It was held the lack of a physical address means that service of a claim form is inadmissible due to uncertainty of service (EEO regulation, art 14). However, this can be rectified under EEO regulation, art 18(2) if it can be shown, by the defendant’s conduct in the proceedings, that the defendant had personally received the document. In considering this aspect it was held that an email from the defendant which stated 'just send the documents by email' was conduct within the litigation for the purposes of EEO regulation, art 18(2), notwithstanding that the email was not something which had been formally or procedurally required in the proceedings.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial