Murrills v Berlanda & Anor

Murrills v Berlanda & Anor

The claim form was not validly served on the First Defendant because he was resident in Italy and the Appellant's solicitors failed to serve him in accordance with CPR 6.41. The address of Re-Shape was not his residential or business address at the time of service, and no order was made authorising service at that address. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs Mary Josephine Murrills; First Defendant/respondent: Dr Maurizio Berlanda; Second Defendant: The Belvedere Medical Group Ltd (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Claim for Non Service
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Limitation Periods, Medical Negligence
Civil Procedure Service of Process Jurisdiction Limitation Periods Medical Negligence

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Mary Josephine Murrills

Claimant/appellant

Dr Maurizio Berlanda

First Defendant/respondent

The Belvedere Medical Group Ltd (in liquidation)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Claim for Non Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim form was validly served on the First Defendant within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether service should have been effected in Italy under CPR 6.41
  3. 3 Whether the order of 15 June 2012 authorised service at the Re-Shape address

Ratio Decidendi

The claim form was not validly served on the First Defendant because he was resident in Italy and the Appellant's solicitors failed to serve him in accordance with CPR 6.41. The address of Re-Shape was not his residential or business address at the time of service, and no order was made authorising service at that address. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out as against the First Defendant
  • No order on the Respondent's notice