‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Defendants appealed against a master’s order that service of a claim form by the Claimants on their solicitors amounted to good service. The Claimants applied for service by an alternative method under CPR 6.15.’
Zenith PI Blog, 19th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The detailed procedural requirements of the Insolvency Rules 1986 make inadvertent breach a perpetual possibility. Debtors often try to take steps to frustrate the process, and may rely on such breaches to do so. A common tactic is to evade personal service. The Court is therefore faced with a need to balance the protections these procedural requirements establish against the possibility of their exploitation by unscrupulous debtors.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Stuart Clark, a solicitor at The International Family Law Group LLP, reports on a recent Irish case which could have important implications for the priority of divorce proceedings in international cases.’
Family Law Week, 8th January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Viridor Waste Management Ltd v Veolia ES Ltd [2015] (unreported)
The Claimant was awarded costs on the indemnity basis when the Defendant had taken unreasonable advantage of the Claimant’s late service of its particulars of claim in the hope of obtaining a windfall strike-out when it was obvious that relief from sanctions was appropriate.’
Zenith PI Blog, 8th June 0215
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 604 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 137
‘The term “service in accordance with rules of court” in regulation 47F(5) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended, meant that valid service was achieved when the relevant step for service of a claim form, set out in CPR r 7.5(1), was completed within the seven-day time limit prescribed by regulation 47F(1).’
WLR Daily, 20th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A problem frequently arises when, for one reason or another – most frequently the late arrival of the client in a solicitor’s office – the limitation period is nearly up, but one has not got the medical report or one has not got the materials needed for the drafting of the Particulars of Claim or indeed has grave doubts about whether the claim is viable, but plainly proceedings need to be commenced notwithstanding. In those circumstances, it is recognised as the best practice, following CPR 6.4(1)(b), to issue a claim form but to notify the court that the Claimant wishes to serve the Claim Form. If one does not do that, the court will serve the Claim Form automatically, whereas if you undertake to serve it yourself, you will have up to four months within which to serve the Claim Form. During that time, one can ensure that what needs to be done in order to present a coherent and correctly presented claim can be done.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The principles to apply when considering whether to allow an application under 6.15 (service of the CF by alternative method or at an alternative place). The evidence in support must explain the failure to serve.’
Zenith PI Blog, 26th January 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Ashley and others v Tesco Stores Ltd and others [2015] WLR (D) 11
‘The applicable time limit for service outside the jurisdiction of a claim form on a Scottish registered company, at its registered office in Scotland, where the claimant sought to serve the claim form under section 1139(1) of the Companies Act 2006 was six months from the date of issue of the claim form, as laid down by CPR r 7.5(2).’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Altomart Ltd v Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1408; [2014] WLR (D) 451
‘An application under CPR r 3.1(2)(a) for an extension of time in which to file a respondent’s notice was by analogy subject to the robust approach to compliance with rules set down by the Court of Appeal in relation to applications for relief from sanction under CPR r 3.9.’
WLR Daily, 29th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A recent case provides clarification and guidance on the issue of service by the courts in contravention of the claimant’s instructions.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The court in Canning v Network Rail [2014] EWHC 2104 (QB) treated an application to rely on supplementary witness evidence as an application for relief from sanctions. The Mitchell considerations therefore came into play.’
Zenith PI Blog, 3rd October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘With the 75th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules (coming into force 1 October 2014), amendments to Practice Direction 21 (Children and Protected Parties) address the inconsistencies between the rules and practice direction in respect of the material that must be served and filed in relation to child/protected party settlement claims.’
Zenith PI Blog, 23rd September 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Postal service of a claim form by the court in disregard of the claimant’s request to return the claim form to him so that he could serve it personally, in breach of CPR r 6.4(1)(b), was an “error of procedure”, within rule 3.10, and so did not invalidate service.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Kidd and another [2014] EWHC 847 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 155
‘Where the Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to the High Court under article 31(8) and (9) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for the extension of an interim suspension order, the respondent affected by the order should ordinarily receive a minimum of seven calendar days notice of the application.’
WLR Daily, 26th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge yesterday sought to “reinforce the message that the Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time-wasting procedural points” as it appeared the message from last month’s Summit Navigation ruling “may not yet have been heard”.’
Litigation Futures, 13th March 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In almost every litigated case the parties usually find themselves needing to vary the dates of some directions. This can be done by way of written agreement between the parties and is allowed by CPR 2.11.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
In re C (A Child): [2013] EWCA Civ 1412; [2013] WLR (D) 449
‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the proper approach to be adopted in family proceedings when considering a without notice application for a prohibited steps order and the making of a contact order.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The requirement, laid down under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, that rules affecting immigrants be laid before Parliament before they became lawful applied to rules which a migrant had to fulfil as a condition of his obtaining leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and did not apply to rules which an educational establishment had to fulfil before it was entitled to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area.”
WLR Daily, 17th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025