header-logo header-logo

04 July 2013
Issue: 7567 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Claim form

Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth and another [2013] EWHC 1693 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 220 (Jun)

The effect of CPR 7.2 (1) and CPR 2.6(1) was that, as a general rule, a claim form was the document issued by the court on which the court seal was placed. Accordingly, when CPR 6.3(1) stated that “a claim form may…be served by any of the following methods”, as a general rule, it was service of a hard copy document as issued and sealed by the court. A photocopy of that document was not sufficient. There were clearly exceptions. When a claim form was served by fax or other means of electronic communication under CPR 6.3(1)(d) in accordance with Practice Direction 6A, necessarily there was not service of the original document issued and sealed by the court. In such circumstances, the hard or soft copy of the fax or the soft copy or print out of the attachment to an e-mail was the document served but in each case the hard or soft copy represented a copy of the claim form issued and sealed by the court.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll