Failure to Serve Solicitors

Nanglegan v Royal Free Hospital ([2001] 3 All ER 793 CA)

Despite the defendants having stipulated that service should be effected on their solicitors, the claimant served proceedings on the defendants themselves. This contravened CPR rule 6.5(4), which provides that any document to be served ‘must be sent or transmitted to, or left at, the address for service given by the party to be served’. The claimant sought to overcome that mistake by invoking Rule 6.1(b) (Part 6 applies to the service of documents except where ‘the court orders otherwise’) and Rule 6.8(1) (the court may make an order permitting service by an alternative method). Rule 6.1 was held to be too wide and general in its application to avail the claimant and Rule 6.8 was held to be prospective rather than retrospective in its operation. It cannot be applied ipso facto to cure some error already made in effecting service.