The next point that has been argued before me in this contempt application relates to the question of service of the order made by Marcus Smith J on 13 December 2021.The judge had to consider whether the committal documents had been served, the defendant had to be served personally. The defendant did not appear at an application for committal. The judge had to consider whether this was good service. The defendant was on the other side of the door and the process server informed the defendant of the nature of the documents being served. Service took place by putting the documents through a letterbox of a flat.
It was necessary for those proceedings to be served personally on the defendant. The claimant brought proceedings for contempt against the defendant.
They could not have failed to come to the notice of the defendant, who was, after all, in the flat with a locked door and there was no possibility of any other person coming along and taking the documents away from him.” THE CASE “I am also satisfied that, by pushing the envelope containing the documents through the letter box when the defendant was on the other side of that locked door, and talking, or having just been talking to the process server through the door, those documents were left as close to the defendant as was reasonably possible for the process server to achieve. The papers had been put through a letterbox in a flat when the defendant was standing on the other side. In Field v Del Vecchio EWHC 1117 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) considered whether committal proceedings had been properly served.
0 kommentar(er)
