The Court held that service of a claim after it had become stale under UCPR r 24(1) was irregular, and that an order for substituted service could not be construed as authorising service of a claim that was not 'in force', even where service was otherwise effected in compliance with the substituted service order. The default judgment obtained on the basis of that irregular service was set aside as of right. The Court also renewed the claim under r 24(2) and (3), finding that the history of repeated attempts to achieve service and the defendant's and his solicitor's near-certain knowledge of the claim justified renewal, and that the defendant had demonstrated a sufficient prima facie defence on the merits notwithstanding a wholly implausible explanation for the failure to file a defence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.