Author

James Bryden

Senior Counsel

Read More
Author

James Bryden

Senior Counsel

Read More

20 April 2023

Disputes Quick Read – 17 of 86 Insights

Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?

  • Quick read

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. 

What does the CPRC guidance say?

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. 

Does this help?

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.

Find out more

To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.

In this series

Disputes & investigations

ClientEarth v FCA: Challenging Regulator Decisions

12 February 2024

by Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev

Disputes & investigations

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

1 February 2024

by Katie Chandler, Emma Allen

Disputes & investigations

First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts

14 December 2023

Disputes & investigations

The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC

23 October 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?

14 August 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty

4 August 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell

1 June 2023

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

CJC costs review – what will change?

1 June 2023

by James Bryden, Helen Robinson

Disputes & investigations

Embargoed judgments – dos and don'ts

16 May 2023

by Stephanie High

Cryptoassets, blockchain and distributed ledger technology

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

by Nick Maday

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

by Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

by Multiple authors

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift

21 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

by Andrew Howell

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Privilege waiver warning

2 July 2020

by Tim Strong, Georgina Jones

Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

by Multiple authors

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Disputes & investigations

CJC costs review – what will change?

1 June 2023
Quick read

by James Bryden and Helen Robinson

Click here to find out more
Disputes & investigations

Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime

3 May 2023
Quick read

by James Bryden

Click here to find out more
Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: government guidance for contracts impacted by COVID-19

12 May 2020
QUICK READ

by Andrew Howell and James Bryden

Click here to find out more