20. April 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 34 von 103 Insights
Since the pandemic, service of court documents by email has become an increasingly common practice among solicitors, but the procedural rules have been slow to keep pace with developing practice. This has led to courts having to decide whether service has been effected validly by email where the parties have agreed that as a method of service.
In R (on the application of Tax Returned Ltd and others) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] EWHC 2515 (Admin) (which we reported on here) the court decided that an agreement between the parties for service by email under Practice Direction 6A was valid only if the recipient had nominated a single email address for service.
Later, in Sconnect Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 3295 (CH), the court distinguished Tax Returned, recognising that there were practical issues in forcing parties to use only one address as that could frustrate service, causing delay and increasing costs.
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has now stepped in to provide further guidance on service by email. The question however is whether the new guidance addresses the current ambiguities in what will constitute a valid agreement for service by email.
The CPRC has added the following wording to Practice Direction 6A.4.1(3):
"Where a party has indicated that service by email must be effected by sending a document to multiple email addresses, the document may be served by sending it to any 2 of the email addresses identified".
This new wording is effective from 6 April 2023.
The new wording in Practice Direction 6A.4.1(3) leaves it open to a party effecting service of a document to exercise a discretion in deciding the email addresses on which to serve the materials where the other side has nominated more than two email addresses. The provision does not therefore provide absolute certainty as to the emails on which service will be effected.
There may be good reasons why a party or a law firm may need to ask that a document be served on more than two of its lawyers and it seems rather odd that the serving party should be able to choose to effect service on only two emails where more than two have been nominated. As it stands, a third lawyer nominated to receive a document could be missed off the service email and that would not affect the validity of the service.
The obvious way to have certainty as to who will receive service of documents would be to provide only two email addresses, but there may be cases where that is not practical or desirable.
As we have previously suggested, a way around the restriction on the number of email addresses would be to set up a group email account but again this may not be available to all parties and can indeed have its own issues even with IT assistance.
We understand that there may be further consultation on the revised provision, and we will update you with any new developments.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.
21. Oktober 2025
von mehreren Autoren
11. Juni 2025
von Ryan Ferry, Edwina Kelly
30. Januar 2025
von Katie Chandler
22. Januar 2025
von mehreren Autoren
6. Dezember 2024
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
8. November 2024
30. Oktober 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. Oktober 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. Juli 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. Juli 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. März 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. Februar 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. Februar 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. Dezember 2023
13. Dezember 2023
17. Oktober 2023
von Katie Chandler
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. Juli 2023
10. Juli 2023
von Katie Chandler
1. Juni 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. Mai 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
5. April 2023
von Tom Charnley
8. März 2023
2. März 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. Februar 2023
13. Februar 2023
8. Februar 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. Januar 2023
von Georgina Jones
3. Oktober 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. Juli 2022
6. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
27. Juli 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. Juli 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. Juni 2022
von Stephanie High
13. Juni 2022
26. Mai 2022
31. Mai 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
von Emma Allen
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. März 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
von Matthew Caskie
13. September 2021
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. Juli 2021
15. Juli 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. Mai 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. Mai 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. März 2021
26. Februar 2021
von Tim Strong
24. Februar 2021
20. Januar 2021
von Stephanie High
12. Januar 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. Oktober 2020
23. September 2020
von Stuart Broom
7. Oktober 2020
von Nick Storrs
12. Mai 2020
18. Mai 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. März 2020
von James Bryden
17. März 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. Februar 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. Februar 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. Juli 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. Juli 2020
21. Juli 2020
3. Dezember 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. Oktober 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. Januar 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. Januar 2022
von Natalia Faekova
8. März 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. März 2022
von Stuart Broom
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
von James Bryden und Helen Robinson
von James Bryden
von Andrew Howell und James Bryden