We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.
By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.
By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Rebecca Thomas has written a case analysis which has been published by Lexis Nexis. Read more >
The Court found for Christopher’s client on ground 1, concluding that submissions made to a Judge in 2014 amounted to a serious procedural irregularity, and also went on... Read more >
Social media:
Philip Newman represented the applicant.
Summary: Where a defendant had filed an acknowledgement of service but had not disputed the court’s jurisdiction within 14 days after filing it, as required by CPR r.11(4), he was not entitled to extra time to serve notice to dispute jurisdiction even though the claimant’s claim form had been served on the defendant outside the jurisdiction after the six-month period required for service. Rule 11(5) had been engaged and the defendant was treated as having accepted the court’s jurisdiction. Link: Case Analysis (pdf)
10.07.2014
