Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

Where a defendant has given an address for service by nominating solicitors authorised to accept service, a claim form sent by post must be served at that address. The claimant has no alternative right to serve the defendant directly.

After the prescribed period has expired, the court may extend time for service only if the conditions in rule 7.6(3) are satisfied. The claimant must have taken all reasonable steps to effect service and must have applied promptly. General powers to correct procedural errors, or provisions permitting alternative methods of service, cannot circumvent those specific limits.

The claimant issued a personal injury claim near the end of the limitation period. The defendant’s insurers subsequently confirmed that Browne Jacobson were instructed to accept service. The claimant’s solicitor instead posted the proceedings to the hospital using an incorrect postcode. The nominated solicitors received them after the four-month service period had expired.

A district judge found service invalid but granted a retrospective extension. His Honour Judge Colthart allowed the defendant’s appeal and brought the claim to an end. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The principal issues were whether a claim form could validly be served on the defendant after an address for service had been nominated, and whether the court could validate or extend the late service.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Thorpe and Buxton LJJ held that service on the hospital was invalid. Once the defendant had nominated solicitors and given their business address for service, rule 6.5(4) required any document sent by first-class post, including the claim form, to be sent to that address.

2. Thorpe LJ held that rule 6.5 creates a primary obligation to give an address for service. A party may ordinarily choose its residence, place of business or solicitor’s business address. Where an address has been given, rule 6.5(4) governs postal service. Rule 6.5(5) does not confer an option to disregard a nominated address when serving a claim form.

3. Buxton LJ agreed. The exclusion of claim forms from rule 6.5(5) accommodates cases in which the claimant does not yet know whether solicitors act for the defendant or have authority to accept service. It does not exempt a claim form from rule 6.5(4) where the defendant has already given an address for service. Requiring service on authorised solicitors promotes prompt and orderly litigation.

4. Rules 6.1 and 6.8 afforded no relief. Rule 6.8 concerns an authorised alternative method of service; it does not permit retrospective correction of defective service. Following Venos v Marks and Spencer Plc, the general case-management and error-correction powers could not be used to evade the specific restrictions imposed by rule 7.6(3).

5. The conditions for a retrospective extension under rule 7.6(3) were not met. The claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form. The solicitor discovered the mistake while time remained but failed to fax the documents to the nominated solicitors. Nor had the claimant acted promptly: the extension application was issued approximately two months after it was clear that valid service was disputed.

6. The order was that the appeal be dismissed with costs in the terms sought.

1. Court of Appeal: The claimant’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld His Honour Judge Colthart’s conclusion that service was invalid and that rule 7.6(3) precluded a retrospective extension.

2. Clerkenwell County Court, circuit judge: His Honour Judge Colthart allowed the defendant’s appeal from the district judge. He held that rule 6.5 required service at the nominated solicitors’ address and that the requirements for a retrospective extension were not satisfied.

3. Clerkenwell County Court, district judge: The district judge held that the purported service did not comply with the rules but granted a retrospective extension under rule 7.6.