fbpx

Email Address Not Enough for Serving Claim

22nd May 2018 By Arman Khosravi

You may think that because a firm has an email address, you can serve a writ or other legal document on them by sending it via email…and so you can, but not unless the firm has agreed to that.

It took a visit to the Supreme Court to resolve the issue in a recent case. The circumstances were simple. A man wished to serve a legal claim on a firm of solicitors. As is standard practice in such cases, the firm instructed another law firm to act for them. That firm emailed the man asking him to address all future correspondence to them. He emailed the claim to them without establishing whether or not they had agreed to accept service by email. He did not use a solicitor and was therefore not familiar with the rules that govern such legal actions.

For his claim to be validly served, it would have to have been delivered by 25 June 2013. On 24 June 2013, he sent the email containing his claim and ancillary documents and received an automated response. On 4 July, the firm wrote to the man saying that they had not agreed to accept service of the documents by email, so they would take no action with regard to the claim as the time limit for service had expired. They also informed the court of this.

The scene was therefore set for the dispute. Critical to its determination was the rule (in the Civil Procedure Rules – which govern the conduct of civil litigation) that documents may be served by email if the firm has supplied ‘an email address set out on the writing paper of the solicitor acting for the party to be served but only where it is stated that the email address may be used for service’.

The District Judge rejected his arguments that his claim should be accepted as validly served because the solicitors had communicated with him by email and that allowance should be made for him because he was representing himself. The argument then proceeded to the Court of Appeal.

The man lost again. The Court was of the view that ‘in circumstances where the claimant had done nothing at all other than attempt service in breach of the rules, and that through ignorance of what they were, there was no "good reason" to make the order’ the man sought – a ruling by the Court that service of his claim was valid.

In a split decision, the Supreme Court also rejected the man’s argument, leaving him carrying significant costs and no longer able to pursue his claim.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...