- No relief for failure to effect service within four months (Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd (DMG Media))
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant, a litigant in person, failed to effect service of the claim form in accordance with CPR 6 within the four-month validity window. As such, the court was asked to consider numerous applications to validate service and/or the steps that had been taken to effect service during the period of validity. Service had been effected by email and on solicitors who had not been asked to confirm whether or not they were authorised to accept service. Each of the claimant’s applications to validate the steps that he had taken to effect service within the period of validity of the claim form were refused; with the result that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the claim. Written by Christopher Snell, barrister, at New Square Chambers.
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