20 avril 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 30 de 99 Publications
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.
6 December 2024
14 November 2024
par Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14 November 2024
par Emma Allen
8 November 2024
par Edward Spencer
30 October 2024
par plusieurs auteurs
15 October 2024
par Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
5 July 2024
par Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21 March 2024
par Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1 February 2024
par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12 February 2024
par Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
17 October 2023
14 August 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
4 August 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
3 May 2023
par James Bryden
20 April 2023
par James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
par Jessie Prynne
19 January 2023
par Georgina Jones
3 October 2022
par Gemma Broughall
22 September 2022
par Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
par Nick Maday
25 July 2022
par Edward Spencer
6 July 2022
par Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
21 July 2022
par Edward Spencer
27 July 2022
par Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
par Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17 June 2022
par Stephanie High
13 June 2022
par Edward Spencer
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
par Stephanie High
31 March 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
21 September 2021
par plusieurs auteurs
13 September 2021
par Edward Spencer
6 September 2021
par Stephanie High
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
par Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
par David de Ferrars
5 May 2021
par Stephen O'Grady
21 April 2021
par Stephanie High
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
par Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
par Stephanie High
12 January 2021
par Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
7 October 2020
par Nick Storrs
26 May 2020
par Edward Spencer
18 May 2020
par Katie Chandler
9 April 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
21 April 2020
par Stephanie High
11 March 2020
par James Bryden
17 March 2020
par Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
par Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21 February 2020
par Andrew Howell
2 June 2020
par Georgina Jones
16 June 2020
par Georgina Jones
2 July 2020
par Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
par Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
par Katie Chandler
10 January 2022
par Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20 January 2022
8 March 2022
par Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
par Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
par James Bryden et Helen Robinson
par James Bryden
par Andrew Howell et James Bryden