Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
In Norcross v Constantine the court held that service of a claim form at a defendant’s last known address was not good service under CPR r.6.9 where the claimants had reason to believe the defendant no longer lived there.
This case concerned an application to set aside a judgment obtained in default of an acknowledgment of service. The claim form was served at the defendant’s last known address under CPR r6.9(2). However, the claimants had previously been told that the defendant had moved and had been out of the jurisdiction since 2009. Therefore, an application was made to set aside judgment because service was defective.
The application was granted as it was clear from the evidence that the claimants had reason to believe that the defendant no longer resided at the address under r6.9(3). The test was objective and the claimants could not simply ignore that information. As they had failed to take the reasonable steps required by r.6.9(3), service was defective and the default judgment was set aside.
This case highlights the need to consider all information when ascertaining the ‘last known address’ in order to serve court documents.
On 14 January 2019 a Capped Costs Pilot Scheme was introduced in the Leeds and Manchester Business and Property Courts, and has been set to run for two years.
View blog
In Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Limited, the Employment Tribunal has considered the implications of dress codes on men.
In a lengthy majority judgment accompanied by two powerful dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court found yesterday that land acquired and held for statutory purposes cannot be registered as a village green where that registration is incompatible with the statutory purpose for which it is held.
Some commentators had anticipated that persisting retail sector challenges might disrupt more than the make-up of the high street or commercial property negotiations between landlords and tenants.
Senior Associate
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up