0370 270 6000

Godwin v Swindon Borough Council

16 October 2001
The issues

Service – Deemed date of Service

The facts

Claimant had to serve Claim Form by 8 September 2000. The Claim Form was posted on the 7 September but it was received by the Council on 8 September. The date of deemed service was the 9 September CPR6.7(1). The Court was asked to admit evidence of the date when service was actually effected and if not whether an extension of time in any event should be given to the Claimant.

The decision

1. It was generally unhelpful to interpret the Civil Procedure Rules by reference to the previous Rules and cases decided under those Rules. The fact that the previous Rules contained the words “unless the contrary is proven” was therefore not helpful.

2. The wording of CPR6.7(1) was clear. The deemed date of service had to be treated as the actual date of service irrespective of proof of the date on which Proceedings were received by the Defendant.

3. No extension of time under CPR7.6(3) was available to the Claimant.

Appeal allowed Claim dismissed.

This appears to overrule Anderton -v- Clwyd reported recently.

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