Smith v. David Probyn, PGA European Tour Ltd [2000] EWHC QB 136 (25th February, 2000)

Smith v. David Probyn, PGA European Tour Ltd [2000] EWHC QB 136 (25th February, 2000)

There was no valid service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on the Defendants, as Harbottle & Lewis were not authorised to accept service and did not indicate otherwise. The Claimant's solicitors failed to take reasonable steps to effect service within the prescribed period, and there was no basis to extend time or disapply the limitation period. All appeals fail.

Citation
[2000] EWHC QB 136
Parties
Claimant: Mr Mark Smith; First Defendant: Mr Probyn; Second Defendant: PGA European Tour (A company limited by guarantee)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Three Interlocutory Decisions of Master Trench
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decisions of the Master upheld.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Limitation Periods, Extension of Time, Authority to Accept Service
Civil Procedure Defamation Service of Process Limitation Periods Extension of Time Authority to Accept Service

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mark Smith

Claimant

Mr Probyn

First Defendant

PGA European Tour (A company limited by guarantee)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Three Interlocutory Decisions of Master Trench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on Harbottle & Lewis constituted valid service on the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time for service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the one year defamation limitation period should be disapplied

Ratio Decidendi

There was no valid service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on the Defendants, as Harbottle & Lewis were not authorised to accept service and did not indicate otherwise. The Claimant's solicitors failed to take reasonable steps to effect service within the prescribed period, and there was no basis to extend time or disapply the limitation period. All appeals fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decisions of the Master upheld.