Sun06252017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

SERVICE: Life after Mitchell?

11 April 2014  

Maura McIntosh reports on a recent decision in the Commercial Court

In what may be seen as a surprising decision, the Commercial Court has treated service of particulars of claim on the defendant’s lawyer by e-mail as valid service, despite the fact that the lawyer had not agreed to accept service by e-mail and in any event the purported service was five days late. The court held that the case fell within CPR 3.10, which provides that an error of procedure does not invalidate any step in the proceedings unless the court so orders: Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG [2014].

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Associated Electrical Industries Ltd v Alstom UK [2014] EWHC 430 (Comm)

    Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm)

    Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537

    Phillips & anor v Symes & ors [2008] UKHL 1