Dunbar Assets Plc v BCP Premier Ltd [2015] EWHC 10 (Ch) (12 January 2015)

Dunbar Assets Plc v BCP Premier Ltd [2015] EWHC 10 (Ch) (12 January 2015)

There was no good reason for the court to make an order under CPR 6.15 permitting service by email as good service because the Claimant provided no explanation for failing to serve in accordance with the rules, and the absence of prejudice to the Defendant was not sufficient. The Deputy Master erred in law and discretion in granting the order.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 10 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dunbar Assets PLC; Defendant/appellant: BCP Premier Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order of Deputy Master Mark Dated 2 May 2014
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Alternative Service, Relief From Sanctions, Limitation Periods, Consent Orders
Civil Procedure Banking Law Professional Negligence Service of Claim Form Alternative Service Relief From Sanctions Limitation Periods Consent Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dunbar Assets PLC

Claimant/respondent

BCP Premier Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order of Deputy Master Mark Dated 2 May 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a good reason under CPR 6.15 to permit service of the claim form by email as good service
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Master erred in exercising discretion to regularise service by email
  3. 3 Whether absence of prejudice to the defendant is sufficient to justify alternative service under CPR 6.15

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason for the court to make an order under CPR 6.15 permitting service by email as good service because the Claimant provided no explanation for failing to serve in accordance with the rules, and the absence of prejudice to the Defendant was not sufficient. The Deputy Master erred in law and discretion in granting the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Deputy Master Mark set aside
  • Application for alternative service under CPR 6.15 refused