Personal injury lawyers have expressed their hope that rules can be changed to stop 'tactical games' over the non-acceptance of service by email. The Association of the Personal Injury Lawyers said plans to ban some defendants' refusal of email service were ‘long overdue’.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is consulting on requiring firms to accept email service without them having to confirm consent in each case.

APIL said the review was necessary to reflect modern working practices and prevent tactical ploys to hold up legitimate cases.

‘Email is generally how two parties would communicate up to the point of court proceedings, so then to refuse to accept service of those proceedings by email smacks of gamesmanship and an attempt to frustrate the progress of a case,’ said Matthew Tuff, president of APIL. ‘Lawyers need to be barred from refusing to accept service of proceedings by email as it can cause unnecessary delays which could lead to claimant solicitors missing the limitation period for service, which causes extra work and expense, and uncertainty for the injured claimant.’

Tuff added that lawyers' workloads would be eased if they did not have to chase confirmation for service. 

The CPRC said in its consultation that parties often find themselves put to additional expense and delay by parties or their solicitors unreasonably refusing to accept electronic service even though they may have been communicating in that manner for some time. In some cases, serving parties have attempted service by email and realised only after the expiry of limitation that the receiving party had not agreed to it.

The rules allow service on a party or their solicitors by fax, email or other electronic means. However, unless an order for alternative service is obtained under CPR, Part 6.15, the consent of the party being served is required for electronic service to be used.

APIL said the burden should be on the recipient to let the party serving know if there are any limitations to them accepting service by email; if no limitations are communicated to the serving party, it is to be assumed that there are no limitations

APIL added that the rules can be revised to cater for circumstances requiring additional safeguards, particularly cases involving litigants in person.