Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors

Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors

Service of the claim form by fax on the solicitors was not valid because the solicitors had not been authorised to accept service, and the requirements of CPR 6.7 were not met. There was no good reason to retrospectively validate the service under CPR 6.15, as the failure to serve properly was due to the claimants' solicitors' error and not to any conduct by the defendants or their solicitors.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Brown & Others; Defendant: Innovatorone Plc & 7 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Applications by Mr. Bailey and Collyer Bristow granted; claimants' applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Alternative Service, Solicitor Authority, Practice Direction 6 a
Civil Procedure Service of Process Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Alternative Service Solicitor Authority Practice Direction 6 a

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brown & Others

Claimant

Innovatorone Plc & 7 Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the claim form by fax on the solicitors was not valid because the solicitors had not been authorised to accept service, and the requirements of CPR 6.7 were not met. There was no good reason to retrospectively validate the service under CPR 6.15, as the failure to serve properly was due to the claimants' solicitors' error and not to any conduct by the defendants or their solicitors.

Court Disposition

Applications by Mr. Bailey and Collyer Bristow granted; claimants' applications dismissed.

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.