header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010
Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Defendant's DOB

The form of acknowledgement of service (revised form N9) contains a box in which...

The form of acknowledgement of service (revised form N9) contains a box in which the defendant is asked to record his date of birth. I have just had an acknowledgement rejected by the court because the box was not completed. I can find nothing in CPR 10 or PD10 which requires me to provide this information. Was the court correct?

The requirement to provide the date of birth, if known, is in PD16 para 10.7 and extends to provision of the date in an admission, defence, defence and counterclaim, reply or other response. Therefore, the court was correct. If the date of birth is unknown then this should be stated in the acknowledgement etc. It would be helpful if the requirement was mentioned or there was an appropriate cross-reference in PD 10.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll