Bank Notes

S - Service

10/6/20

DVB BANK SE v VEGA MARINE LTD [2020] EWHC 1494 (Comm)

Considers when documents other than a claim form may be served by an alternative method or at an alternative place [46] - [55] and the grant of permission to make a summary judgment application against a defendant who has not filed an acknowledgment of service [56] - [63].

26/5/20

RIDLEY v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PJSC [2020] EWHC 1213 (Comm)

Considers principles to be applied on applications to set aside an order granting permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR r 6.36 [60] and to serve by alternative means under CPR r 6.15 [89].

11/5/20

ORAN ENVIRON MENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD v QBE INSURANCE (EUROPE) LTD [2020] EWHC 1271 (Comm)

The court interpreted a consent order allowing an extension of time to “serve” a claim form by a specific time and date as requiring the claim form to be served in the sense of taking the step required by CPR r 7.5 (in this case posting) rather than requiring it to be physically served on the defendants. Had physical service been required, the court would not have retrospectively extended time under CPR r 7.6 because it could not be said the claimant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with CPR r 7.5 but had been unable to do so.

5/3/20

CANADA GOOSE RETAIL LTD v PERSONS UNKNOWN [2020] EWCA Civ 303

Considers when proceedings for interim and final relief can properly be brought and served on persons unknown.

1/11/19

LONESTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORP LLC v KAYE [2019] EWHC 3008 (Comm)

Considers whether the circumstances of the case were sufficiently exceptional to dispense with service of a claim form on the defendant under CPR r 16.6.

23/10/17

CMOC v PERSONS UNKNOWN [2017] EWHC 3599 (Comm)

In principle a worldwide freezing injunction can be made against persons unknown, especially in fraud litigation where the first object is to notify a bank of the freezing injunction so that an account can be frozen and information can be obtained from the bank which may assist to identify the defendant. The defendants need to be identified as clearly as possible. On the facts they were sufficiently identified by reference to involvement in the activities said to have constituted the fraud and by reference to particular bank transfers and accounts. Alternative service on the relevant banks was also appropriate. Orders were also made against the relevant banks for provision of information.

18/9/17

HIGGINS v ERC ACCOUNTANTS & BUSINESS ADVISERS LTD [2017] EWHC 2190 (Ch)

Provision of a copy of a claim form by letter to the defendant’s solicitors had not constituted service on the defendant. Orders for service by an alternative method, dispensing with service or for an extension of time for serving the claim form were refused because claimants could not show that they had taken all reasonable steps to serve within time and no good reason had been shown for making the orders sought.

31/7/17

CARETECH COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD v OAKDEN [2017] EWHC 1944 (QB)

The court refused retrospectively to validate service of a claim form under CPR 6.15(2) in circumstances where a copy of the claim form had been sent “for information only” to a solicitor who was not on the record for the defendant. On the facts, there had been no good reason for the failure to serve the claim form which could easily have been served during the period of its validity.

10/12/15

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY v HECKEL [2015] EWHC 3606 (TCC)

The court dismissed an application for disclosure by a defendant of contract documents which the defendant and his solicitors claimed did not exist and were not in the defendant’s possession. There was no reason for the court to go behind that denial. The court also refused an application by the claimant to extend time for service of the particulars of claim.

4/7/14

NORCROSS v GEORGALLIDES [2014] EWHC (Comm)

Steps taken to serve a claim form amounted to good service under CPR r 6.15. Although the form had been delivered to the wrong address and the claimant had not taken reasonable steps to locate the correct address, the defendant had become aware of the proceedings during the validity of the claim form and had suffered no prejudice.

2/7/14

POWER v MELOY WHITTLE ROBINSON SOLICITORS [2014] EWCA Civ 898

Steps already taken by the claimant to bring a claim form to the attention of the defendant solicitors constituted good service under CPR r 6.15. The defendant knew everything it needed to know about the claim, that the claimant intended to pursue the action and had attempted to serve the proceedings on the defendant through the court. The correspondence and discussions between the solicitors made it plain that the claim was acknowledged to be live and was consistent with service having been treated as effected within the period of validity of the claim form.

26/6/14

AMERICAN LEISURE GROUP LTD v GARRARD [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch)

An extension of time for service of a claim form on the first defendant was refused as the claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within 4 months, as required by CPR r 7.6.