Report comment

I disagree with the judgment (and yes, I'm sure their Lordships would be distraught about that...)

But I disagree with the present state of the rules more. I see no continued justification for the draconian nature of rules surrounding Service of the Claim Form.

Yes, it is an important step. Yes, it *might* be the first time that the Defendant ever learns about the case. However, in the vast majority of cases there has been pre-action correspondence. Often in these cases, the Defendant knew full well the Claim had been issued and what it was about. Here, they even had the documents within the prescribed time!

There is room for Judges to apply actual judgement to the circumstances of individual cases, while still recognising the important of service. Here, could justice not have been served by a costs order?

In those cases where the Defendant fee earner is actually away and the email is not actually seen for 2 weeks, would justice not be served by simply extending the time for acknowledgement of service and the Defence? Again with a costs order against the Claimant it they don't agree such an extension and the Defendant applies to Court. In such a position the Defendant could also wait and let the Claimant apply to court to ask for the mistake to be excused (similar to how relief from sanctions are now dealt with)

And yes, take the strength of the claim and all other matters into account too if you want. Just don't have a blinkered, absolute rule that strikes out an entire claim for such a minor non-compliance with a procedural rule.

NB - Personally, I think the LIP issue is actually a minor point in the case, and was only one of several factors. To me, the fact that the Defendants actually had all of the relevant documents within the time limit (and did not even argue prejudice) is far more relevant.