Strict rule following

[Lord Byron]

LOL that was the best subject heading I could come up with.

Can anyone point me to the case law and/or other documentation on strict rule guidance? In other words, a company telling the Court they did not receive a claim in the post and how the Court has already ruled on this previously? i.e. it was accepted that Royal Mail did deliver the claim and the Court must strictly follow this assumption?

[Lord Byron]

Hello all. Anyone have some guidance on precedent/previous case law that accepts Royal mail definitely delivered whatever was served this way? As I said, other side claims mail was not received, and I want ot show the Judge that it is already widely accepted that this is not an acceptable excuse.

[Pezza54]

The legal advice is to always send important documents Royal Mail "Signed For". This way you can track the document on the RM website and view the date and signature when it arrives.
This is doubly important while RM is having strike days which is delaying post.

[Lord Byron]

As memory serves there are strict rules on whether a court will set aside an order when someone claims not to have received something mailed normal post via Royal Mail. I have seen that mentioned and discussed here before with links to the relevant case law but unfortunately cannot locate it now.

Anyone know where it was disccused?

[Huxie]

Possibly something in these links may help?

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...53#post1630953

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...34#post1627634

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...-deemed-served

[Lord Byron]

Many thanks Huxie diamond!