The Civil Procedure Rules (“CPRs”) are very strict in their application of the rules on service of documents. You do not want to find yourself approaching the expiry of the limitation period for your claim, and you are scrabbling around to figure out who to serve the claim form on!
Master Clark had little sympathy for the Claimants’ application in Keilaus v Houghton [2024] EWHC 2108 (Ch). In this matter, the Claimants’ solicitors delayed asking about acceptance of service of the claim form until 2 weeks before the deadline for service. They subsequently overlooked the confirmation they received from the Defendants’ solicitors in response, and proceeded to serve the claim directly on the Defendants (which amounts to invalid service under Rule 6.7 CPRs). Master Clark dismissed the Claimants’ application that there was “good reason” to allow alternative service (i.e. directly on the Defendants) in the circumstances, characterising the situation as an “avoidable error”.
This decision highlights the importance of having a clear record on files of whether your opponents’ solicitors have agreed to accept service, and the means by which they have agreed to accept service. The CPRs/Courts are unlikely to be forgiving if an avoidable error is made.
Whether a defendant’s solicitors are instructed to accept service is, self-evidently, a very significant fact in the conduct of litigation. Once the inquiry has been made and answered, reasonable steps would consist of recording or highlighting that fact on the file, so it is readily ascertainable, not leaving it unmarked in correspondence to be reviewed, in this case, when the remaining time for service was running short. If that had been done, the error would not have been made. The fact that it was not done led to what I consider to be the avoidable error by the claimants’ solicitor in reviewing the file.