Report comment

As others have intimated, this seems as much about antiquated service rules as it does about LIPs.

There are genuine reasons why email is treated differently, but properly thought out rules can cover these; the current rules seem to stem from an almost bygone age, where fax is seen as the norm but email is still a recent innovation.

Alternatively, simply making the rules or interpretation of them more flexible would go a long way to making all litigants, represented or not, more reasonable. In this case, the Defendant's solicitors did receive the documents in time - there was no factual dispute on that. Is it really justifiable in 2017 to say that's not good enough simply because it was by email? And it is really good to encourage litigants to take such technical challenges when no prejudice at all has been suffered?

The elephant in the room is that the current rules seem odd given all the judicial talk of online courts...