Oran Environmental Solutions Ltd & Anor v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Anor

For domestic service of a claim form, an order requiring service by a specified date ordinarily means service in accordance with the procedural rules, including the deemed-service machinery in CPR 7.5. Posting the claim form by the prescribed deadline may therefore constitute valid service even though receipt occurs later.

Service on a defendant’s solicitors requires a written indication that they are instructed to accept service of the claim form. Service by email likewise requires the prior written indication and nominated address required by Practice Direction 6A. A retrospective extension under CPR 7.6 requires all reasonable steps to have been taken and a prompt application; delay, neglect or oversight will ordinarily be powerful reasons for refusal.

The claim arose from a fire at the claimants’ waste-processing premises and a professional-negligence claim against their insurance broker. The claim form was issued on 21 December 2018 to protect the limitation position. Following successive consent orders, the claimants were required to serve the claim form and particulars of claim by 4pm on 6 January 2020.

On that day, the claimants sent the documents by special delivery to the broker’s solicitors and to the broker itself, and also attempted service by fax and email. The broker applied for an order that the court had no jurisdiction because service had not been effected within the claim form’s validity. The claimants made a contingent application for a retrospective extension under CPR 7.6. The central issues were the construction of the word “serve” in the consent order and whether the alternative methods of service were valid.

1. The jurisdiction application was dismissed. The claim form and particulars of claim were validly served within the extended period.
2. Service on Beale & Co was ineffective. Under CPR 6.7(1), service on a solicitor requires that the defendant has given the solicitor’s address for service or that the solicitor has notified the claimant in writing that it is instructed to accept service of the claim form. Neither requirement was satisfied.
3. Service by email on the second defendant was also ineffective. Paragraph 4.1 of Practice Direction 6A requires a prior written indication that electronic service is accepted and an email address or other electronic identification nominated for that purpose. An address taken from the defendant’s website was insufficient.
4. The word “serve” in the consent order meant service in accordance with the procedural rules, including CPR 7.5. The court followed the reasoning in T&L Sugars Ltd v Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd and Paxton Jones v Chichester Harbour Conservancy. The order’s reference to 4pm did not displace the rule that, for postal service, the required step is completed by posting before the applicable deadline.
5. The special-delivery posting to the second defendant was therefore effective service, even though receipt occurred later. The particulars of claim, served with the claim form, were treated as subject to the same service mechanism under CPR 7.4(1).
6. The contingent CPR 7.6 application did not require determination and no order was made on it. The judge nevertheless stated that it would have been refused. The claimants had not taken all reasonable steps to comply with CPR 7.5, having repeatedly left service until the last moment, and the application was not made promptly after the jurisdiction objection became apparent.