20. April 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 32 von 101 Insights
Since the pandemic, service of court documents by email has become an increasingly common practice among solicitors, but the procedural rules have been slow to keep pace with developing practice. This has led to courts having to decide whether service has been effected validly by email where the parties have agreed that as a method of service.
In R (on the application of Tax Returned Ltd and others) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] EWHC 2515 (Admin) (which we reported on here) the court decided that an agreement between the parties for service by email under Practice Direction 6A was valid only if the recipient had nominated a single email address for service.
Later, in Sconnect Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 3295 (CH), the court distinguished Tax Returned, recognising that there were practical issues in forcing parties to use only one address as that could frustrate service, causing delay and increasing costs.
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has now stepped in to provide further guidance on service by email. The question however is whether the new guidance addresses the current ambiguities in what will constitute a valid agreement for service by email.
The CPRC has added the following wording to Practice Direction 6A.4.1(3):
"Where a party has indicated that service by email must be effected by sending a document to multiple email addresses, the document may be served by sending it to any 2 of the email addresses identified".
This new wording is effective from 6 April 2023.
The new wording in Practice Direction 6A.4.1(3) leaves it open to a party effecting service of a document to exercise a discretion in deciding the email addresses on which to serve the materials where the other side has nominated more than two email addresses. The provision does not therefore provide absolute certainty as to the emails on which service will be effected.
There may be good reasons why a party or a law firm may need to ask that a document be served on more than two of its lawyers and it seems rather odd that the serving party should be able to choose to effect service on only two emails where more than two have been nominated. As it stands, a third lawyer nominated to receive a document could be missed off the service email and that would not affect the validity of the service.
The obvious way to have certainty as to who will receive service of documents would be to provide only two email addresses, but there may be cases where that is not practical or desirable.
As we have previously suggested, a way around the restriction on the number of email addresses would be to set up a group email account but again this may not be available to all parties and can indeed have its own issues even with IT assistance.
We understand that there may be further consultation on the revised provision, and we will update you with any new developments.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.
30. January 2025
22. January 2025
von mehreren Autoren
6. December 2024
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
8. November 2024
von Edward Spencer
30. October 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. October 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. July 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. July 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. March 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. February 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. February 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. December 2023
13. December 2023
23. October 2023
von mehreren Autoren
17. October 2023
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. July 2023
10. July 2023
1. June 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. May 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
5. April 2023
von Tom Charnley
8. March 2023
2. March 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. February 2023
13. February 2023
8. February 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. January 2023
von Georgina Jones
3. October 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. July 2022
von Edward Spencer
6. July 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. July 2022
21. July 2022
von Edward Spencer
27. July 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. July 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. June 2022
von Stephanie High
13. June 2022
von Edward Spencer
26. May 2022
31. May 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. March 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
13. September 2021
von Edward Spencer
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. July 2021
15. July 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. May 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. May 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. March 2021
26. February 2021
von Tim Strong
24. February 2021
20. January 2021
von Stephanie High
12. January 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. October 2020
23. September 2020
7. October 2020
von Nick Storrs
26. May 2020
von Edward Spencer
12. May 2020
18. May 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. March 2020
von James Bryden
17. March 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. February 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. February 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. June 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. June 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. July 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. July 2020
21. July 2020
3. December 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. October 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. January 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. January 2022
8. March 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. March 2022
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
von James Bryden und Helen Robinson
von James Bryden
von Andrew Howell und James Bryden