Another cautionary tale about service: Chehaib v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2 (KB) - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers
22/01/24. This case started life as a clinical negligence claim brought against three Defendants. The claim was issued just within time on 2 August 2021. The Second Defendant consented to an extension of time for service of proceedings, but simultaneously stipulated that they would not accept service via email. However, this was overlooked and service attempted on the Second Defendant via email on the final day that the Claim Form was valid – 30 March 2023. Note four extensions of time had been granted since December 2021.
The Claimant solicitors’ error was brought to their attention within two weeks by the Second Defendant and the Claimant attempted to send the proceedings via post the following day. However, the Second Defendant refuted that the court had jurisdiction to deal with the claim as the Claim Form was no longer valid.
ISSUES
The Claimant’s relief from sanctions application was the subject of these proceedings. This application was made under CPR r 3.9; but also r 3.10 and r 6.15(2) in the alternative. Reliance on r 7.6(3) was not open to the Claimant on these facts and was not pursued. The Claimant was challenged on the appropriateness of relying on either r 3.9 or r 3.10 to circumvent established rules specifically dealing with service of the Claim Form (i.e. r 7.6(3) and r 6.15). The Claimant contended that this particular scenario was not strictly covered by the rules, because the Claim Form had been sent via an acceptable method of service under CPR r 6.3(1)(d), although it was not in accordance with Practice Direction 6A (i.e. with the consent of the Second Defendant). This approach was described as “semantic” by the Second Defendant and “novel” by the judge (paragraphs 78-79).
The Defendant cross applied to strike out the claim under r 3.4(2)(c) and sought a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application at all.
JUGDMENT
Master Stevens gave short shrift to the notion that the court did...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/PashaIgnatov
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
