Mark Keilaus & Anor v Nicola Houghton & Anor

Mark Keilaus & Anor v Nicola Houghton & Anor

Claimants’ solicitors made an avoidable error by failing to record or highlight the defendants’ solicitors’ authority to accept service. This was not a reasonable step, and claimants were plainly able to serve validly. There was no good reason to authorise alternative service or extend time. Applications for relief...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Keilaus; Claimant: Siobhan Keilaus; Defendant: Nicola Houghton; Defendant: Charlotte Jane Fergusson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Probate/inheritance / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction Challenge and Relief From Sanctions)
Outcome
Claimants’ application dismissed; defendants’ jurisdiction challenge succeeds.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Alternative Service, Jurisdiction Challenge
Civil Procedure Probate Inheritance Service of Claim Form Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Alternative Service Jurisdiction Challenge

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Keilaus

Claimant

Siobhan Keilaus

Claimant

Nicola Houghton

Defendant

Charlotte Jane Fergusson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Probate/inheritance / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction Challenge and Relief From Sanctions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to retrospectively authorise service of the claim form by alternative method under CPR 6.15
  2. 2 Whether the claimants took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form in time and were unable to do so under CPR 7.6(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants’ solicitors made an avoidable error by failing to record or highlight the defendants’ solicitors’ authority to accept service. This was not a reasonable step, and claimants were plainly able to serve validly. There was no good reason to authorise alternative service or extend time. Applications for relief from sanctions and alternative service are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claimants’ application dismissed; defendants’ jurisdiction challenge succeeds.

Orders

  • Claimants’ application for relief from sanctions and alternative service dismissed.
  • Claim form not validly served; claim remains in limbo pending formal discontinuance or court order.