Firstdale Ltd. v Quinton [2004] EWHC 1926 (Comm) (05 August 2004)

Firstdale Ltd. v Quinton [2004] EWHC 1926 (Comm) (05 August 2004)

Service on the defendant personally was valid because the authority to accept service given by the defendant's solicitors was limited to claims by B&G, not by the claimant as assignee. The claim form's defects were non-prejudicial and did not warrant striking out. The deed of assignment, though not executed as a deed by the claimant, was sufficient to effect a statutory assignment under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Notice of assignment was valid as a copy of the deed was provided to the defendant.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1926 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Firstdale Ltd; Defendant: Gerald Joseph Quinton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Service and Validity of Claim Form
Outcome
Defendant's applications refused; claimant's application did not arise.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Assignment of Debt, Execution of Deeds, Validity of Claim Form, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Compliance
Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Service of Process Assignment of Debt Execution of Deeds Validity of Claim Form Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Compliance

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstdale Ltd

Claimant

Gerald Joseph Quinton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Service and Validity of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form on the defendant personally was valid given prior notification of solicitors' authority to accept service
  2. 2 Whether the claim form was defective for lack of detail or improper signature
  3. 3 Whether the deed of assignment was validly executed and notice properly given

Ratio Decidendi

Service on the defendant personally was valid because the authority to accept service given by the defendant's solicitors was limited to claims by B&G, not by the claimant as assignee. The claim form's defects were non-prejudicial and did not warrant striking out. The deed of assignment, though not executed as a deed by the claimant, was sufficient to effect a statutory assignment under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Notice of assignment was valid as a copy of the deed was provided to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications refused; claimant's application did not arise.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to strike out claim form refused
  • Defendant's application for declaration of invalid service refused