The Supreme Court has agreed that Mark Barton should not be granted an order that indicates his service of claim form could be regarded as good service.
On 24th June 2013, the appellant served a claim of professional negligence to Wright Hassall LLP as an attachment to an email.
Under the Crown Prosecution Rules, service by email is only permitted when the recipient has previously confirmed in writing that it is willing to accept service in this way.
The Supreme Court heard that Mr Barton’s claim form was issued by Chesterfield County Court on 25th February 2013, with an expiration date of 25th June 2013.
In April 2013, an associate solicitor at Berrymans Lace Mawer (BML), acting for Wright Hassall, sent Mr Barton an email saying the firm would “await service of the claim form and particulars of claim”.
One day before the deadline, Mr Barton sent an email to the solicitor saying the claim form and particulars of claims were attached, following by a further email that afternoon attaching an additional document.
BLM did not give a “substantive reply” to these emails until 4th July 2013, when the firm wrote to the claimant pointing out that “pursuant to CPR part 6 and the associated practice direction, email was not a permitted method of service unless the party being served has previously indicated in writing that it is willing to accept service by email”.
BLM said that as Mr Barton had not done so, “the claimant had not served the proceedings” and was now out of time to serve the claim form.
The court heard that Mr Barton issued an application the following month, asking the court to order that his service of the claim form by email was good service.
The defence argued that email was a good method of service as the claims form reached Wright Hassall in the correct time.
This was rebutted by Michael Pooles QC, acting on behalf of Wright Hassall. Mr Pooles stated that the defence’s argument was irrelevant.
“The rules relating to the method of service are not difficult to understand. They can be easily obtained online, or in person at the Citizen Courts Bureau.”
The court dismissed the appeal. In her closing remarks, Justice Lady Hale said that “the Civil Procedure Rules are there to be followed, and Mr Barton did not follow these rules.”
She went on to say that the facts of the negligence claim against Wright Hassall were “not material”.
The court also ruled that the costs that were awarded to Wright Hassall by the Court of Appeal were fair.
Submitted Article
Headline
Short Headline
Standfirst
Published Article
HeadlineSupreme Court upholds a defective service ruling
Short HeadlineSupreme Court upholds a defective service ruling
Standfirst
The Supreme Court has agreed that Mark Barton should not be granted an order that indicates his service of claim form could be regarded as good service.
On 24th June 2013, the appellant served a claim of professional negligence to Wright Hassall LLP as an attachment to an email.
Under the Crown Prosecution Rules, service by email is only permitted when the recipient has previously confirmed in writing that it is willing to accept service in this way.
The Supreme Court heard that Mr Barton’s claim form was issued by Chesterfield County Court on 25th February 2013, with an expiration date of 25th June 2013.
In April 2013, an associate solicitor at Berrymans Lace Mawer (BML), acting for Wright Hassall, sent Mr Barton an email saying the firm would “await service of the claim form and particulars of claim”.
One day before the deadline, Mr Barton sent an email to the solicitor saying the claim form and particulars of claims were attached, following by a further email that afternoon attaching an additional document.
BLM did not give a “substantive reply” to these emails until 4th July 2013, when the firm wrote to the claimant pointing out that “pursuant to CPR part 6 and the associated practice direction, email was not a permitted method of service unless the party being served has previously indicated in writing that it is willing to accept service by email”.
BLM said that as Mr Barton had not done so, “the claimant had not served the proceedings” and was now out of time to serve the claim form.
The court heard that Mr Barton issued an application the following month, asking the court to order that his service of the claim form by email was good service.
The defence argued that email was a good method of service as the claims form reached Wright Hassall in the correct time.
This was rebutted by Michael Pooles QC, acting on behalf of Wright Hassall. Mr Pooles stated that the defence’s argument was irrelevant.
“The rules relating to the method of service are not difficult to understand. They can be easily obtained online, or in person at the Citizen Courts Bureau.”
The court dismissed the appeal. In her closing remarks, Justice Lady Hale said that “the Civil Procedure Rules are there to be followed, and Mr Barton did not follow these rules.”
She went on to say that the facts of the negligence claim against Wright Hassall were “not material”.
The court also ruled that the costs that were awarded to Wright Hassall by the Court of Appeal were fair.
