Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2)

The court has jurisdiction to dispense with service under CPR 6.9 in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has received the claim form and no prejudice is shown. The technical defect in service does not justify depriving the claimant of a hearing on the merits, and the overriding objective is best served by allowing the claim to proceed.

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

Civil Procedure Service of Process Extension of Time Limitation Periods Dispensing With 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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

Jon Olafsson

Claimant/respondent

Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Appeal Application for Relief From Service Requirements

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

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