Report comment

I had always worked on the basis that the steps set out in 7.5 were still subject to the standard rules on Service in Rule 6, i.e. that if the Claim Form was sent by post it was subject to the deemed date of service 2 working days later. Posting on the last day of service was not good enough.

I can see that 7.5 could be read to mean that the usual rules on deemed service don't apply, though I think you are brave to rely on that view. I think that interpretation only gets argued seriously when someone has already served (arguably) late...

It's not good drafting though - the reference to Rule 6 with regard to personal service but no such reference for other methods sticks out a mile. It could simply be that personal service is not easily described other than by reference to Rule 6, but the same could be said of leaving it at the "relevant place".

Any way you look at it, it's a dogs dinner and has been for years. This is particularly inexcusable when you consider the draconian consequences of getting service of the Claim Form wrong. I hate to think how much satellite litigation has been generated over the years.

I think it's the draconian results of non-service in time which are the real problem, with no allowance for judicial discretion. My understanding is that the harsh rule is based on the fact that, in theory, service of the Claim Form might be the very first time a Defendant becomes aware of the Claim. Where parties have actually been in prior contact, possibly corresponding in detail for years about the Claim, is that a valid justification for such an unbending rule on service?