Personal Management Solutions Ltd & Ors v Gee 7 Group Ltd & Anor

For service of a claim form under rule 6.7(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant’s solicitor must have notified the claimant in writing that the solicitor was instructed to accept service. A general request that correspondence be sent to solicitors does not, without more, include service of originating process. The court must construe the correspondence objectively and in context. Proper service is jurisdictional, not merely technical, and a solicitor has no implied authority to accept service of originating process simply because the solicitor acts generally for the client in relation to the intended claim.

The respondents issued copyright infringement proceedings against the appellants. On the last working day before expiry of the period for serving the claim form, they sent an amended claim form, particulars of claim and response pack by fax and DX to the appellants’ solicitors.

The solicitors had previously asked that correspondence be sent to them, but had never confirmed that they were instructed to accept service. They gave unchallenged evidence that they lacked that authority. The Deputy Master held that service was valid. The issue on appeal was whether the correspondence, properly construed, amounted to the written notification required by rule 6.7(1)(b).

1. Appeal allowed. The service of the amended claim form on the appellants’ solicitors was ineffective.
2. Rule 6.7(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the solicitor acting for the defendant to notify the claimant in writing that the solicitor is instructed to accept service of the claim form. The requirement is specific and cannot be satisfied merely because the solicitor acts for the defendant in relation to the intended claim.
3. The correspondence was to be construed by applying the ordinary principles of contractual-document interpretation stated in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 and Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36. The January letter asked that correspondence be sent to the solicitors. In its context, correspondence did not include a claim form, since nothing indicated that it was intended to include originating process.
4. The later correspondence confirmed that interpretation. The respondents’ solicitors expressly asked whether the appellants’ solicitors would be instructed to accept service. They later served the pre-action disclosure application directly on the appellants because no such confirmation had been given. Subsequent documents were referable to that application and did not alter the position.
5. The question whether originating process has been properly served goes to the root of the court’s jurisdiction. It is therefore not answered by describing the point as technical. A solicitor has no implied authority to accept service of originating process merely from acting for the client in other respects. The uncontroverted evidence that the solicitors lacked authority reinforced the conclusion that service was invalid.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Mr Justice Arnold allowed the appeal from the order of Deputy Master Cousins dated 21 September 2015 and held that service of the amended claim form was ineffective.