Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Service of defamation and data protection action did not comply with court order
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court set aside the service of proceedings in a defamation and data protection case against a regulatory body due to non-compliance with the court's service order. The plaintiff, a chartered accountant, had served the Plenary Summons directly instead of serving the Notice of the Plenary Summons as directed by the High Court. Despite the plaintiff's argument that the defendant was aware of the proceedings and had not suffered prejudice, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and court orders, particularly in the context of international service. The plaintiff must now seek to renew the summons for proper service, with the application to be heard by the same judge due to familiarity with the case.
defamation, data protection, service of proceedings, Order 11 Rule 1 (RSC), Order 12 Rule 26 (RSC), Hague Convention, Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1988, Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), international comity, ex parte application, Plenary Summons, Notice of Plenary Summons, court order compliance, renewal of summons, jurisdiction challenge, territorial sovereignty.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
