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!

[Lizmontague]

Hijacking the thread - can some kind soul please point me to the case law that was established for following the CPR strictly? So about strict rule compliance?

[JK2054]

Hiello,

what situation are you in? Please elabroate.

[atticus]

Hijacking the thread - can some kind soul please point me to the case law that was established for following the CPR strictly? So about strict rule compliance?

You might wish to search the Civil Litigation Brief blog.

[Lizmontague]

The Civil Litigation brief is v. helpful. Thank you.

Can't find what I am looking for though.

It revolved around a case which is maybe ten years old, and pertained to a Judgment where it was said courts cannot keep using their own discretion to overlook breaches of CPR, reinstating claims, etc. They have to strictly follow the rules, and, moving forward, this judgment has to be applied to all cases so that everyone receives identical and more importantly fair and impartial treatment.

[atticus]

I wonder if you are thinking of Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/906.html

Search in Civil Litigation Brief for 'Denton' - https://www.civillitigationbrief.com...&submit=Search

[Lizmontague]

Unfortunately it is not this one: "This aspect received insufficient attention in the past. The court must always bear in mind the need for compliance with rules, practice directions and orders, because the old lax culture of non-compliance is no longer tolerated. "

I'm specifically looking for the case that led to a judgment, or maybe it was an appeal, that said strict rule compliance was necessary moving forward.

This one does refer to Mitchell and how it is now outdated, but Mitchell does not seem to be as strict as I recall the judgment/appeal being, as memory serves.

[Lizmontague]

Hmmh. Maybe it was Mitchell...

[atticus]

Mitchell has been superseded by Denton. It depends whether your interest relates to a current case or is more academic.