Late Witness Statement from Claimant

[N0tMe]

Hi!

I am the defendant in a parking claim - the small claims court order stated that witness statements needed to be sent to the court and other party by 4pm on Monday 16th Nov (which I did), but I did not receive the claimants WS. I called the court who suggested sending an email to them to be passed to the judge - which I have done.

Yesterday, I got an email from the claimants solicitors (two days late, plus I hadn't agreed to receive WS by email) saying see attached WS. The WS wasn't actually attached (looking into detail, it doesn't look like it was blocked, just left off) so I responded to ask them to resend.

With less than 2 weeks to the hearing, I'm worried I won't get the WS at all, or it will be left to the last minute (a tactic the claimant is known to use often).

What should I do? Just sit tight and hope the Judge strikes out because it was late, contact the court again to tell them I still haven't received (it's likely they have a copy now) or follow up with the claimant (possibly copying in the court to get it on record)?

[Aged William]

Lateness aside, does a party in civil action actually have to agree to the method of service? An electronic witness statement is perfectly acceptable in criminal matters (if all other conditions are met).

As an interim measure, the OP could ask for the wording of the statement to be included in the body of an email so at least the detail is known even if not in the prescribed format.

[des8]

Lateness aside, does a party in civil action actually have to agree to the method of service? t.

Yes, if electronic service is desired
CPR 6.3 and 6.20 state that methods of service include personal service, leaving a document at the correct address, first-class post, document exchange, or any other service which provides for delivery on the next business day.

Service by fax or e-mail is only permitted, in accordance with paragraph 4.1 of practice direction 6A, if agreement is reached between both parties to accept service by electronic means.

The courts appear reluctant to accept service by email. In Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, it was held that email service was not effective, despite the claimant being a litigant in person.