Report comment

The full judgment has not been published, only the summary. It would be interesting to see the reasoning, but it seems likely that the Supreme Court was less than interested in technical issues. The defendants' solicitors were BLM who have an e-mail address on their letterhead, although no invitation to accept proceedings by e-mail. The claimant was aware that some solicitors do not accept service by e-mail, but it appears assumed that they would in the absence of a refusal to do so. BLM had also been corresponding by e-mail.

It does seem that the idea that a person would not instruct solicitors just to avoid a potential service problem is somewhat speculative.