Thorne v Lass Salt Garvin (A Firm)

Thorne v Lass Salt Garvin (A Firm)

Service of the Claim Form by fax was invalid as the Respondent had not given prior written consent to accept service by fax, as required by CPR 6.2 and Practice Direction 6PD.3. The fact that the Respondent is a firm of solicitors does not make this an exceptional case justifying dispensing with service. The application to amend the notice of appeal to raise a new ground was refused as it was raised late and could have been raised earlier.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Michael Rebbel Thorne; Respondent/defendant: Lass Salt Garvin (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (professional Negligence) / Appeal From Order of Master Rose on Validity of Service and Application to Amend Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Dispensing With Service, Amendment of Notice of Appeal, Jurisdictional Objections
Civil Procedure Service of Process Dispensing With Service Amendment of Notice of Appeal Jurisdictional Objections

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

Michael Rebbel Thorne

Appellant/claimant

Lass Salt Garvin (a firm)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (professional Negligence) / Appeal From Order of Master Rose on Validity of Service and Application to Amend Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the Claim Form by fax was valid under CPR 6.2 and Practice Direction 6
  2. 2 Whether the court should dispense with service under CPR 6.9
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent accepted jurisdiction by filing an Acknowledgement of Service without contesting jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the Claim Form by fax was invalid as the Respondent had not given prior written consent to accept service by fax, as required by CPR 6.2 and Practice Direction 6PD.3. The fact that the Respondent is a firm of solicitors does not make this an exceptional case justifying dispensing with service. The application to amend the notice of appeal to raise a new ground was refused as it was raised late and could have been raised earlier.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay Respondent’s costs of the appeal