Report comment

@Commented on: 21 February 2018 11:10 GMT

I couldn’t agree more. Just allow the thing to be served and then scrutinise it. This will give us such bad press. Your comment pretty much sums it up here:

“...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! ... 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...”

It seems strange that the profession is gunning to make themselves so irrelevant and despised in the eyes of the public.