FIELD V DEL VECCHIO [2022] EWHC 1117 (CH) AND FIELD V DEL VECCHIO [2022] EWHC 1118 (CH)

HEADLINE SUMMARY

A judge has held that personal service had been successful on two separate occasions, despite the recipient's repeated refusal to take possession of the documents which were served.

COMMENTARY

Some court documents must be personally served, for example an injunction or a contempt application where the defendant has no legal representation. These decisions show that where a recipient is unwilling to engage with the process of personal service, the courts are open to the difficulties of the party attempting service, provided that (1) steps have been taken (including where necessary engagement of a process server) to ensure such documents could not have escaped the recipient's attention, and (2) the recipient has been made aware of the documents' legal nature.  

Commentators have suggested that this decision should not be seen as a relaxation of the rules, but an effort to prevent an applicant from being prejudiced by a recipient's deliberate misconduct.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In order to facilitate personal service of an order for the delivery up of goods, the applicant engaged a process server who entered the recipient's (R) block of flats, spoke to R through their flat door explaining the legal nature of the documents and subsequently posted the envelope containing the documents through the letterbox, so that it was inside R's flat.

Personal service of a contempt of court application on R was also attempted at a later date. This time the process server approached R outside of their flat, explaining that they were providing important legal papers connected with the proceedings. The process server pushed the envelope at R, touching R with it, however R refused to take hold of the envelope and ran away. Upon R's return to their flat, the process server entered the block of flats and left the envelope leaning against R's door.

KEY LEGAL POINTS

HHJ Paul Matthews held that personal service had been effected on both occasions, highlighting the following:

• the process server had explained the nature of the documents to R and that they related to the legal proceedings; it is important that R was aware of these facts;
• in relation to service of the order, the documents had been left as close to R as reasonably possible when they were pushed through R's letterbox;
• with regards to the application for contempt, there was a sufficient degree of possession, despite being brief, when the envelope touched R and the fact that R then ran away is irrelevant;
• the documents had unequivocally come to R's attention.

The key legal point arising from this judgement is that in situations where a recipient will not accept documents, personal service can be effected by telling them what the documents contain and leaving the documents with or near the recipient.

Key contact

Madeleine Farran