Personal Service in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v National Insurance Commissioner.ex parte Secretary of State for Social Services
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 Abr 1981

    To my mind the word "functions" in its physiological or bodily sense connotes the normal actions of any organs or set of organs of the body, and so the attention must be in connection with such normal actions. The word "attention" itself indicates something more than personal service, something involving care, consideration and vigilance for the person being attended. The very word suggests a service of a close and intimate nature.

  • Kenneth Allison Ltd and Others v A E Limehouse & Company
    • House of Lords
    • 17 Oct 1991

    Like my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich, I am satisfied that Mr. Vallance's first submission must fail. Prima facie, the process server must hand the relevant document to the person upon whom it has to be served. The only concession to practicality is that, if that person will not accept the document, the process server may tell him what the document contains and leave it with him or near him (see Ord. 65, r. 2 and the notes to that rule in the Supreme Court Practice).

  • Alexandre Yakovlevich Tseitline v Leonid Victorovich Mikhelson and Others
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 28 Oct 2015

    In my judgment it is plain from these authorities (and from the special nature and role of personal service discussed above) that the process of leaving a document with the intended recipient must result in them acquiring knowledge that it is a legal document which requires their attention in connection with proceedings.

  • Forward v West Sussex County Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 Jun 1995

    But none of these authorities concerns Order 10 rule 1 as it now reads or formerly read, and where (as here) the court is required to construe a detailed statutory code it is in our view dangerous to seek to apply statements made with reference to different statutory codes. The alternatives to personal service are allowed because they found a good working presumption (rebuttable, but still a good working presumption) that they will bring the proceedings to the notice of the defendant.

  • Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 03 Jul 1980

    If the only real redress is damages, how can its measure or scope be affected according to whether the contract is regarded as still subsisting or as at an end? To preserve the bare contractual relationship is an empty formality. The difference is fundamental, for there is no legal substitute for voluntary performance.

    Why should the doctrine operate differently in the case of contracts of personal service from the way in which it operates in respect of other contracts? I for my part can discover no reason why it should do so in principle. For similar reasons it cannot, in my opinion, be because a contract of personal service involves a relationship of mutual confidence, or because the obligations of a master and a servant are mutually dependent upon co-operation between the parties.

  • R v County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Rossi
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Feb 1956

    Wnen construing this section, it Is to be remembered that it is a fundamental principle of our law that no one is to be found guilty or made liable by an order of any tribunal unless he has been given fair notice of the proceedings so as to enable him to appear and defend them. The common law has always been very careful to see that the defendant is fully apprised of the proceedings before it makes any order against him.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT