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 and very unusual circumstances, such as where the defendant has received the claim form in time by a permitted method but service was technically defective. The claimant's failure was a technicality, the defendant suffered no prejudice, and the overriding objective is best served by allowing the claim to proceed. The limitation defence does not preclude the exercise of this discretion in these circumstances.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3214 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jon Olafsson; Defendant/appellant: Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (procedural/interlocutory) / Post Appeal, Application for Relief From Service Requirements
Outcome
Application granted in part; service dispensed with under CPR 6.9; no order under CPR 7.6(3)
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Extension of Time, Dispensing With Service, Limitation Period, Default Judgment, Libel
Civil Procedure Service of Process Extension of Time Dispensing With Service Limitation Period Default Judgment Libel

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 Appeal (procedural/interlocutory) / 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 and very unusual circumstances, such as where the defendant has received the claim form in time by a permitted method but service was technically defective. The claimant's failure was a technicality, the defendant suffered no prejudice, and the overriding objective is best served by allowing the claim to proceed. The limitation defence does not preclude the exercise of this discretion in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; service dispensed with under CPR 6.9; no order under CPR 7.6(3)

Orders

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