The Court of Appeal recently heard several appeals regarding the rules for serving claim forms (CPR Part 6). In their judgments, their Lordships emphasised (in our view correctly), that claimants should be able to rely upon their solicitors to serve claim forms validly and encouraged judges to take a dim view of mistakes made by solicitors, particularly those who leave service until the last minute when the expiry of the limitation period is approaching or has expired. With that in mind, readers may wish to consider whether service was effected validly in each of the following sets of circumstances. The answers are to be found on page 13.

  1. The defendant’s insurers have nominated a firm of solicitors to accept service. The claim form has been sent to those solicitors before they themselves have confirmed to the claimant that they are authorised to accept service.

  2. The defendant’s solicitors (who have not been given instructions to accept service) have been asked by the claimant to confirm, but have not yet confirmed, that they are authorised to accept service.

  3. The claim form has been faxed to the fax number of the defendant’s in-house legal department to which the claimant’s solicitors have faxed all previous correspondence.

  4. The claim form has been posted to an address to which the claimant’s solicitors had sent a letter of claim several months earlier (and to which the defendant had responded).

  5. The claim form was posted by the claimant’s solicitors one day before the deadline for service expired, upon learning that an application to extend the time for service of the claim form had not been heard, and arrived with the defendant the day after it was posted.

  6. Would it have made any difference in (v) if the claim form had been sent by DX?

  7. The claim form has been sent to a property owned by a defendant landlord but which is occupied by a tenant and is not an address at which the landlord resides or carries on business.

As the answers to these questions demonstrate (to those who can bear to look), the Court of Appeal’s hard line, and its concern about the amount of satellite litigation on technical service points, have resulted in what may appear to be harsh outcomes. It has also prompted the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to consider amending Part 6 to make it clearer. For the time being, however, problems can be avoided by seeking express confirmation from the defendant or its solicitors with regard to the defendant’s address for service and in particular whether the solicitors have authority to accept service. This should always be done in good time before the deadline for service.

Following Nanglen v Royal Free Hospital (2002), service should be made on the defendant’s solicitors where they have been nominated to accept service. Other methods of service (save possibly personal service) will not be effective. Where solicitors are not authorised to accept service, service must be on the defendant either by personal service or at the defendant’s address for service under CPR 6.5(6) by other permissible means. Where there is any doubt about the defendant’s address for service it should be checked (for example from publicly available sources) and the defendant/his solicitors should be asked to explain any discrepancies. It is unwise to make assumptions - apply to court for directions if any difficulties arise. Remember that if the defendant is a limited company service can always be effected at its registered office.

The cases demonstrate very clearly the risks involved in leaving things to chance or delaying service until the last minute. In those circumstances the court’s sympathy is likely to be in short supply.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.