Derina Tetla Phipps v Bruce Constantine Goulbourne
[2024] EWHC 130 (Ch)
Mark Keilaus & Anor v Nicola Houghton & Anor
17 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2108 (Ch)
High Court
Two siblings sued their other siblings over their mother's will. They missed the deadline to officially serve the lawsuit. The court said they should have been more careful and didn't excuse their mistake. The case isn't over, but they need to fix their error to continue.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (siblings) brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against the defendants (executors and beneficiaries of their deceased mother's will).
- •The claim form was served outside its period of validity (after March 28, 2024).
- •Claimants applied for relief from sanctions or to extend time for service; defendants challenged jurisdiction.
- •Claimants' solicitors repeatedly asked defendants' solicitors whether they were instructed to accept service, but overlooked the initial confirmation.
- •Claimants ultimately served the claim form personally on March 27, 2024.
Legal Principles
Service on a defendant personally when their solicitors have confirmed instruction to accept service is invalid.
CPR 6.7 and Nanglegan v Royal Free [2001] EWCA Civ 127
Service by email is invalid without express agreement.
CPR PD 6A, para 4.1
Court may authorise alternative service methods if there's good reason (CPR 6.15).
CPR 6.15
Factors to consider for CPR 6.15 applications include reasonable steps taken by claimant, defendant's awareness, and prejudice suffered.
R. (on the application of the Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355
To extend time for service (CPR 7.6(3)), claimant must show reasonable steps were taken, inability to comply despite those steps, and prompt application.
CPR 7.6(3)
A defendant has no duty to assist claimant with service or warn of invalid service.
Sodastream Ltd v Coates [2009] EWHC 1936 (Ch) and Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12
Outcomes
Claimants' application dismissed.
Claimants failed to show good reason for alternative service or that they took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the valid period.
Claim remains 'in limbo', requiring notice of discontinuance or court order to set aside.
Failure to serve within the 4-month period doesn't automatically lapse the claim.
Similar Cases
Katherine Playfair & Ors v Pannells LLP (formerly PKF (UK) LLP) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1933 (Ch)
The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1579 (KB)
Suzanne Merrills, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
Houda Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2 (KB)