“The rules governing service are clear that it is the registered office or principal place of business – which appear to be one and the same in this case – which needs to be used as the postal address for service upon a limited company. I have no doubt that errors such as have occurred here are often dealt with on a practical basis by amendment in the manner attempted by the claimant’s solicitors. But there is nothing within the rules to require one party to assist the other and a practical solution does not alter the legal position. It is one which the defendant is entitled to uphold, should it wish to do so.”
“I accept that a failure to comply with the rules of service in CPR Part 6 should not be taken lightly … No reason has been put forward by the claimant as to why the rules were not followed. On the other hand, it is clear that the defendants’ solicitors received the Part 36 offer on 15 December 2020. Mr Seitler does not contend otherwise. No complaint was made about the method of service of the Part 36 offer until shortly before the hearing on 3 November. No suggestion has been made that there is any prejudice to the third defendant in the Part 36 offer having been sent by email rather than having been served in some other way, for example by post. In these circumstances, it would in my view be … “a triumph of form over substance” if the court were to make an order invalidating the Part 36 offer…”
We recently reported the decision of Mr Justice Foxton in Serbian Orthodox Church – Serbian Patriarchy v Kesar & Co  EWHC 1205 (QB) in which he reinstated a Default Costs Certificate despite invalid email service of the Notice of Commencement.
Following the making of a wasted costs order against them, the Claimants’ solicitors, Kesar, agreed via their principal Mr Kesar “to accept service by email as [long as] this is reciprocated”. Mr Donnelly, for the Defendant replied “No problem. Yes I’m happy to agree that moving forwards service of documents by email between us is accepted”.