Caretech Community Services Ltd v Oakden & Ors [2017] EWHC 1944 (QB) (31 July 2017)

Caretech Community Services Ltd v Oakden & Ors [2017] EWHC 1944 (QB) (31 July 2017)

CPR 6.15(2) does not permit retrospective validation of service where delivery was expressly 'for information only' and not for service; the claimant is held to its word and cannot rely on steps disavowed as service. Even if rule 6.15(2) is available in principle, there is no 'good reason' to validate service in these circumstances.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1944
Parties
Claimant: Caretech Community Services Ltd; Defendant: Mr Russell Stanley Oakden; Defendant: Allcare Community Care Services Limited; Defendant: Mrs Lisa Berry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under CPR 6.15(2) / Post Trial, Following Setting Aside of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, CPR 6.15(2), Validation of Service, Mis Service Vs Non Service, Good Reason Test
Civil Procedure Service of Claim Form CPR 6.15(2) Validation of Service Mis Service Vs Non Service Good Reason Test

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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caretech Community Services Ltd

Claimant

Mr Russell Stanley Oakden

Defendant

Allcare Community Care Services Limited

Defendant

Mrs Lisa Berry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under CPR 6.15(2) / Post Trial, Following Setting Aside of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 6.15(2) permits retrospective validation of service where delivery was expressly 'for information' and not for service
  2. 2 Whether the court's power under CPR 6.15(2) extends to cases involving both method and place defects
  3. 3 Whether there is 'good reason' to validate service in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 6.15(2) does not permit retrospective validation of service where delivery was expressly 'for information only' and not for service; the claimant is held to its word and cannot rely on steps disavowed as service. Even if rule 6.15(2) is available in principle, there is no 'good reason' to validate service in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2)
  • Claimant may re-issue proceedings if desired