Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2009] EWHC 1376 (Comm) (19 June 2009)

Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2009] EWHC 1376 (Comm) (19 June 2009)

Service of the claim form by fax on the solicitors was not valid as the solicitors were not authorised to accept service under CPR 6.7. The court declined to retrospectively validate service under CPR 6.15 as there was no good reason to do so; the claimants' failure to comply with the rules was not excused by lack...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1376 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Brown & Others; Defendant: Innovatorone Plc & 7 Others; Seventh Defendant: Mr. John Bailey; Eighth Defendant: Collyer Bristow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation (service of Claim Form) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Validity of Service and Application for Alternative Service
Outcome
Applications of Mr. Bailey and Collyer Bristow granted; claimants' applications rejected.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Part 6, Alternative Service, Solicitor Authority to Accept Service
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service of Claim Form Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Part 6 Alternative Service Solicitor Authority to Accept Service

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brown & Others

Claimant

Innovatorone Plc & 7 Others

Defendant

Mr. John Bailey

Seventh Defendant

Collyer Bristow

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation (service of Claim Form) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Validity of Service and Application for Alternative Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form by fax on solicitors constituted valid service under CPR Part 6 and Practice Direction 6A
  2. 2 Whether the court should retrospectively validate service by an alternative method under CPR 6.15

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the claim form by fax on the solicitors was not valid as the solicitors were not authorised to accept service under CPR 6.7. The court declined to retrospectively validate service under CPR 6.15 as there was no good reason to do so; the claimants' failure to comply with the rules was not excused by lack of prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Applications of Mr. Bailey and Collyer Bristow granted; claimants' applications rejected.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claim form was not validly or effectively served on Mr. Bailey or Collyer Bristow.
  • Refusal of claimants' application for retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15.