Thorne v Lass Salt Garvin (A Firm) [2009] EWHC 100 (QB) (28 January 2009)

Thorne v Lass Salt Garvin (A Firm) [2009] EWHC 100 (QB) (28 January 2009)

Service of the Claim Form by fax was invalid as there was no prior written consent from the Respondent as required by CPR 6.2 and Practice Direction 6PD.3. The case was not exceptional so as to justify dispensing with service under CPR 6.9. Permission to amend the Notice of Appeal to raise a new ground was refused as the point could have been raised earlier and there were no exceptional circumstances.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 100
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Michael Rebbel Thorne; Respondent/defendant: Lass Salt Garvin (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Declaring Service of Claim Form Invalid and Refusing to Dispense With Service
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Dispensing With Service, Practice Direction 6, CPR 6.2, CPR 6.9, Amendment of Notice of Appeal
Civil Procedure Service of Claim Form Dispensing With Service Practice Direction 6 CPR 6.2 CPR 6.9 Amendment of Notice of Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Rebbel Thorne

Appellant/claimant

Lass Salt Garvin (a firm)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Declaring Service of Claim Form Invalid and Refusing to Dispense With Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the Claim Form by fax was valid under CPR 6.2 and Practice Direction 6
  2. 2 Whether the court should dispense with service under CPR 6.9
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Notice of Appeal to raise a new ground

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the Claim Form by fax was invalid as there was no prior written consent from the Respondent as required by CPR 6.2 and Practice Direction 6PD.3. The case was not exceptional so as to justify dispensing with service under CPR 6.9. Permission to amend the Notice of Appeal to raise a new ground was refused as the point could have been raised earlier and there were no exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal