Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2) [2006] EWHC 3214 (QB) (20 December 2006)

Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2) [2006] EWHC 3214 (QB) (20 December 2006)

The court has jurisdiction to dispense with service under CPR 6.9 in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has received the claim form and suffered no prejudice, even if the limitation period has expired. The facts of this case are exceptional, as the defendant had actual notice and the only defect was technical. The overriding objective is best served by allowing the claim to proceed.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3214
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jon Olafsson; Defendant/appellant: Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel) / Post Appeal, Application for Relief From Service Requirements
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Limitation Periods, Dispensing With Service, Extension of Time, Default Judgments
Civil Procedure Defamation Service of Process Limitation Periods Dispensing With Service Extension of Time Default Judgments

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jon Olafsson

Claimant/respondent

Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (libel) / Post Appeal, Application for Relief From Service Requirements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should dispense with service of the claim form under CPR 6.9 in exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend time for service of the claim form under CPR 7.6(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to dispense with service under CPR 6.9 in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has received the claim form and suffered no prejudice, even if the limitation period has expired. The facts of this case are exceptional, as the defendant had actual notice and the only defect was technical. The overriding objective is best served by allowing the claim to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Service of the claim form is dispensed with under CPR 6.9; the matter should proceed.
  • No order made under CPR 7.6(3).