The court rules relating to service of proceedings must be adhered to, even if the litigant is unrepresented, otherwise the failure to comply could be costly. The specialist commercial lawyers at Bahamas law firm ParrisWhittaker are highly experienced in successfully advising clients on litigation and how the court rules apply.
The background
The claimant was a litigant in person wanting damages from the defendants for alleged defamation and malicious falsehood. He had tried, unsuccessfully, to serve the claim form within the 4-month time limit under the court rules.
The crucial problem was, he had left it to the last minute. During that 4-month period, he had effected service on solicitors via email, however, they had not been asked to confirm they were authorised to accept service – rendering service invalid. He immediately re-sent the claim form and particulars by post to the defendants but the claim form by then had expired – along with the claims to which it related.
He therefore asked the court to consider a number of applications either to validate service or the steps taken to effect service during the relevant period.
All his applications were refused – the court said he lacked any exceptionally good reason to miss the deadline. Nor would the court retrospectively extend the time period. To be prepared to do so, the litigant must be able to demonstrate to the court that it had taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the time window permitted. The evidence in support of any such an application should state all the circumstances relied on – and should include “a full explanation as to why the claim has not been served”.
Here, the claimant had not taken all reasonable steps that he could to serve the claim form within the four-month period – in fact, he had made no earlier attempts to effect service. The claimant’s principal error, said the court, was that he thought that service by email was an acceptable form of service when it did not comply with the court rules.
The judge had little sympathy for the claimant. He also gave short thrift to his arguments that the defendant’s solicitors should have done more to alert him that there were errors in service. However, they were under no such a duty to do so, unless they had done something to mislead or obstruct him (which they hadn’t in this case).
In short, it is for a claimant to ensure they effect service properly and in good time to avoid any risks that failing to do so puts an end to their claim – before it’s even begun.
How can we help?
We advise and represent a wide range of clients in disputes and legal proceedings. For strategic help and representation, contact the expert commercial lawyers at ParrisWhittaker as soon as possible before taking any further steps.
1Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd (DMG Media) of Daily Mail General Trust plc and others [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB)
