CPR Pt 6 is fraught with technical difficulties. Andrew Butler reports on recent developments
In Hart Investments Ltd v Fidler and another [2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC), [2006] All ER (D) 232 (Nov) Judge Coulson QC was confronted with an application by the second defendant, the liquidator of a company called Larchpark Ltd, to set aside a judgment in default of acknowledgement of service. The application gave rise to a number of questions of practice and procedure relating to the question of service of process.
The central question before the judge was whether or not the time for filing the acknowledgment had expired when the judgment was entered. This depended on whether service by fax had been valid, and if it had not, what the deemed date was of service by post.
Service by fax
The question of whether service by fax was valid in turn depended on whether the defendant had given a ‘sufficient written indication’ of its willingness to accept service in that way, within the meaning of para 3.1 of the practice direction to CPR Pt 6.
The claimant argued
