0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

1 February 2001
The issues

Service of a Claim Form upon Defendant where Defendant had nominated Solicitors

The facts

The Claimant had a PI claim. Proceedings were issued on the last day before the limitation period. The Defendant’s insurers had notified the Claimant’s solicitors that they had instructed Browne Jacobson to accept service of the Claim Form and that it had been confirmed by Browne Jacobson. The Claim Form was served upon the Defendant and not upon the solicitors. 4 days later the Claimant’s solicitor discovered the error prior to leaving on holiday for 2 weeks and left a tape message for his secretary to telephone Browne Jacobson to explain what had happened.

The letter was sent on 6th September which was outside the 4 month period of the validity of the Claim Form. It was sent by Browne Jacobson on 7th December. The Defendant sought an order that service had not been valid. Three days prior to the hearing of that application the Claimant issued retrospective extension of time for service. At first instance the District Judge concluded that service had not complied with the provisions of the rules but exercised the discretion to extend time. On appeal the Circuit Judge held that service had not been valid but refused to exercise discretion to extend time.

The Claimant appealed.

The decision

The obligation in Civil Procedure Rules 6.5 was on a party to give an address for service. Once that had been done service should be at that address. Where solicitors had been nominated by the Defendant to accept service during the period of validity of the Claim Form it was right that service should be upon those solicitors. There was no scope in such a situation for service on any other party, notwithstanding Civil Procedure Rules 6.5 (5)(b).

As regard to the exercise of discretion, the Judge had considered Civil Procedure Rules 7.6 and had been correct to find neither of the requirements that exercise discretion had satisfied (namely if the Claimant had taken all reasonable steps to serve the Claim Form had been unable to do so and if Claimant had acted promptly).

focus on...

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up