Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Ors

A claimant who elects to serve a claim form must comply with the prescribed rules. A solicitor's request that communications be sent to it does not authorise service of a claim form on that solicitor. Service by email also requires a prior written indication of willingness to accept it.

After expiry, an extension under the Civil Procedure Rules requires objectively reasonable steps during the period of validity and prompt application. Actual notice of the claim does not itself provide a good reason to validate defective service. A litigant in person is not normally held to a lower standard of compliance. The general procedural powers in CPR 3.9 and 3.10 cannot circumvent the specific rules governing service, particularly where validation would deprive a defendant of a limitation defence.

The claimant issued a claim form alleging defamation and malicious falsehood arising from articles published by the first defendant. He alleged that the third defendant was the anonymous source and that the second defendant was vicariously liable.

Having chosen to serve the claim form himself, the claimant made no attempt at service until the day before its four-month validity expired. He emailed the claim form and extensive particulars of claim to the defendants and their solicitors, then posted them to the solicitors. The defendants contended that neither their solicitors nor the defendants had authorised email service or service on the solicitors.

The defendants sought declarations under CPR Part 11. The claimant sought retrospective relief under CPR 7.6, CPR 6.15, CPR 6.16, CPR 3.9 and CPR 3.10, together with summary judgment. The central issue was whether the defective attempts at service could be validated after expiry of the claim form.

1. The claimant's applications were dismissed. The claim form had not been validly served during its period of validity. The court declared that it had no jurisdiction over the claim and formally dismissed the application for summary judgment.
2. Service on the defendants' solicitors was ineffective. None of the defendants had nominated the solicitors as an address for service or authorised them to accept service of the claim form under CPR 6.7. Service by email was also ineffective because neither the defendants nor their solicitors had previously indicated in writing a willingness to accept service by email under Practice Direction 6A. A direction to send ordinary correspondence to solicitors did not carry either permission.
3. The requirements for a retrospective extension under CPR 7.6(3) were not met. The claimant had made no earlier attempt to serve the claim form. The statutory inquiry was objective and concerned the whole period of validity. His other litigation, time spent preparing a 300-page pleading, disability, and his belief that the defendants expected service did not show that he had taken all reasonable steps. He could have served the claim form earlier and sought further time for the particulars of claim. The expiry of the limitation period made the defendants' resulting limitation defence particularly significant.
4. There was no good reason under CPR 6.15 to validate the non-compliant service. Although the defendants had notice of the claim, notice alone was insufficient. The claimant's error arose from his own failure to follow the service rules; the defendants and their solicitors had neither misled nor obstructed him. A litigant in person was expected to familiarise himself with the rules governing the procedural step he chose to take. Validation would materially prejudice the defendants by depriving them of a limitation defence.
5. The conditions for dispensing with service under CPR 6.16, reserved for truly exceptional cases, were absent. CPR 3.9 did not apply because valid service is a condition for invoking the court's jurisdiction rather than a sanction. CPR 3.10 could not be used to bypass the specific restrictions in CPR 7.6 and CPR 6.15 or effectively disapply the limitation period.

not stated in the judgment.