Report comment

The comments here seem to reflect the jumbled article above. It is well worth reading the Judgment to get the actual wording.

The simple position appears to be:
1. If proceedings are issued protectively, the rules in 7.5 govern when valid service is affected - namely the date it leaves the office under the prescribed processes;
2. In this case, an application had been made to extend time. The order allowing this gave a defined date for "service" of the claim form;
3. The Defendants argued that the wording of the order referred to the deemed service rules under 6.14 rather than the specific service rules under 7.5. Not a bad argument to try;
4. The court ruled that the wording of the extension order did not take it away from rule 7.5.

On a lighter tone, there are enough negative articles about the poor solicitors at S&G, can we not amend the headline to "Slater and Gordon wins limitation case" or similar?