The Technology and Construction Court handed down judgment in Coal Pension Properties Limited v Mace Living Limited and others [2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC) on 26 May 2026. The case concerned the service of a claim form on the last day of its period of validity: specifically, whether the claim form had been validly served and, if not, whether the Court should permit alternative service under CPR 6.15 and grant relief from sanctions for service of the particulars of claim under CPR 3.1 or 3.9.
Sean Brannigan KC and Alice Carse acted for the successful defendants, several Mace entities, and obtained a declaration that the Court did not have jurisdiction to try the claim.
No Authority to Accept Service
The claim form had been issued on 23 December 2021 and a series of stays extended the date for its service. At 16:46 on the last day of the claim form's validity, the claimant's solicitors purported to serve by email on the defendants' solicitors. At no point had the claimant's solicitors asked whether the defendants' solicitors were authorised to accept service, or whether they were willing to accept service by electronic means.
The Judge held that the claim form had not been validly served, because the defendants' solicitors did not have authority to accept service. The Judge stressed the fundamental importance of clarity as to whether a defendant's solicitor has authority to accept service.
Electronic Service
The Judge went on to find that, even if authority to accept service had existed, valid electronic service had not been effected. An email footer in circulation during the Covid-19 pandemic stating that service could be made by email applied only "until further notice", and had been superseded by a later footer requiring agreement with the lawyer with conduct of the case and use of an identified service address. The purported service complied with neither, and the claimant had also failed to make the enquiries required by paragraph 4.2 of PD 6A. The Court rejected the submission that a notification permitting electronic service could not be withdrawn.
CPR 6.15 — Alternative Service Refused
Applying the factors set out in R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355, the Judge held that the claimant had not taken reasonable steps to effect service in accordance with the rules, that awareness of the contents of the claim form was not without more a good reason to validate service, and that validation would deprive the defendants of a limitation defence. The application under CPR 6.15 was refused, and the defendants' application for a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the claim succeeded.
Significance
The judgment confirms that the Court attaches great importance to compliance with the rules for serving a claim form. If there is any doubt about who should be served and by what means, it is the claimant's responsibility to resolve that doubt. The decision should also discourage claimants and their solicitors from leaving service until the last available moment.
Full judgment: The National Archives — Find Case Law