Typically, documents in court proceedings must be served in accordance with CPR Part 6 and its prescribed methods. This includes the typical methods that most solicitors are familiar with such as service by first class post, document exchange (DX) and personal service.
Sometimes valid service can be frustrated by the unknown whereabouts of a party to the proceedings so what happens in these cases?
It is often the case that where parties’ whereabouts are unknown the case against them is not pursued, not only for cost reasons but for the possibility that the matter would proceed so far only for a court to later determine that service was invalid.
The word ‘typically’ was used to open the article because in recent times the courts have been willing to extend the methods that amount to valid service so that proceedings are not frustrated by the whereabouts of parties. The new method of service approved by the court (in some cases) is service by social media, using sites such as Facebook and Twitter to locate and serve proceedings upon an elusive party.
The principle of service via social media (particularly Facebook) is routinely used in Australia and New Zealand but it is a relatively recent development for English law. In the case of Ako Capital LLP & Ako Master Fund Limited v TFS Derivatives Limited, High Court Judge Mr Justice Teare permitted service of a claim form via Facebook following the Claimant’s application under CPR Part 6.15 to serve by alternative means. Prior to this decision the County Courts were starting to recognise social media as a valid service method but the High Court decision is particularly important due to the weight it carries, particularly when arguing for service in large value cases.
This decision illustrates the High Court’s desire to adjust to the times. The beauty of allowing service via social media is that it is not restricted to a static, physical address, rather it moves with people wherever they go meaning service can be effected whether or not they are at home or even out of the country. This could obviously create jurisdictional issues in some cases but until these arguments come before a court there is no way to predict how the principle of service by social media will stand up when challenged on this basis. What can be said of the decision is that it is a practical one that will no doubt be useful in many future cases. We await the day where service via social media is written into CPR Part 6…
