Report comment

Preface: I have not read the judgment.

The issue is not whether there was valid service (there was not), it is whether the rules should apply differently to a LiP. That is a very important issue and my strong feeling is that the rules should apply to every party in precisely the same way, whether they are represented or not.

Where there is some judicial discretion, LiPs will get some assistance - sometimes some very considerable assistance. And that is fine. But where the rules are clear, they have to apply to a LiP as they would to a represented party. I would expect the SC to uphold the CA decision: the rules apply uniformly, but where there is room for judicial discretion (NOTE: the rules of service do not fall into this camp), a court can/should take into consideration a LiP's unrepresented status.

I would have told the claimant that he had not validly effected service before the expiry of the relevant deadline out of courtesy and out of a concern to avoid a messy situation. But I do not think BLM's 'failure' to do that alters the deficiency of the service.

The rules must be simple, but they have to cover a myriad of possible situations in order to be prescriptive and that means they cannot be simple and short. The rule regarding service is fairly plain to my mind. If C's appeal is on the basis that he could not understand the rules, then I think he will fail on that too.