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

Tenants Can Purchase Freehold When Landlord Cannot Be Found

11th June, 2024 By

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives qualifying leaseholders the right to join together to buy the freehold of their properties – a process known as collective enfranchisement. A recent case demonstrated that this right can be exercised even when the landlord cannot be found. The leaseholders of two flats in a terraced house wished to purchase it from the landlord, but were unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore could not serve notice on him under Section 13 of the Act. They therefore applied for an...

Court Refuses to Set Aside Divorce Order Applied for by Mistake

6th June, 2024 By

While the courts have a range of powers to set aside orders, they will only exercise them in limited circumstances. In a somewhat surprising case that has attracted much comment, the High Court declined to set aside a final order of divorce that had been applied for by mistake. A couple separated in January 2023, after more than 21 years of marriage. In October that year, while financial remedy proceedings were still ongoing, the wife's legal representatives inadvertently applied for a final order of divorce in respect of her instead...

Waiting Time for Grants of Probate Falls

3rd June, 2024 By

Following concerns last year about delays in processing probate applications, recent figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service show that waiting times for grants of probate are continuing to improve. The average time from submission of a probate application to probate being granted fell to 11.3 weeks in March 2024, a decrease from 13.7 weeks in February and 13.8 weeks in January. This is the lowest figure since March 2023, when the average was 10.8 weeks. The longest waiting time since then was in November, at 15.8 weeks: that month,...

Late Appeal Against Tax Penalties Rejected

31st May, 2024 By

It is incumbent on taxpayers to make sure they fully comply with their obligations to file returns and pay any tax due. The point was illustrated by a recent case in which a taxpayer whose return had not been received by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) failed to persuade the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that he should be permitted to appeal against the resulting penalties. On the evening of 31 January 2014, the man had completed his 2012/13 Income Tax return on HMRC's website. Shortly afterwards he went to Cyprus, and...