0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


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