Kuenyehia & Ors v International Hospitals Group Ltd.

Kuenyehia & Ors v International Hospitals Group Ltd.

The failure to comply with the Practice Direction regarding service by fax was not a minor departure from the permitted methods of service under the CPR. The facts were not exceptional, and the claimants' solicitors could have easily complied with the rules. Therefore, the court should not dispense with service under CPR r 6.9.

Parties
Claimant: NUTIFAFA KUENYEHIA; Claimant: DORIS ENYONAM; Claimant: LARTISAN SERVICES INCORPORATED; Defendant: INTERNATIONAL HOSPITALS GROUP LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Dispensing With Service, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Service of Process Dispensing With Service Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Limitation Periods

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUTIFAFA KUENYEHIA

Claimant

DORIS ENYONAM

Claimant

LARTISAN SERVICES INCORPORATED

Claimant

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITALS GROUP LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should dispense with service of the claim form under CPR r 6.9 where service was not effected in accordance with the rules within the permitted period
  2. 2 Whether the failure to comply with the Practice Direction regarding service by fax constituted a minor departure justifying dispensing with service
  3. 3 Whether the facts of the case were exceptional to warrant dispensing with service

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to comply with the Practice Direction regarding service by fax was not a minor departure from the permitted methods of service under the CPR. The facts were not exceptional, and the claimants' solicitors could have easily complied with the rules. Therefore, the court should not dispense with service under CPR r 6.9.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order dispensing with service of the claim form set aside