Read the full judgment text of HCCL 000083/1985 on BabelCite. This HCCL judgment was delivered on 24 March 1988 before Sears J.
Practice and procedure – service of writ – extension of validity of writ – official stamp missing from writ – effect – Ord. 6 r 8, Ord. 2 r 1(2), Ord. 12 r 8 – writ issued 10 July 1985 – validity extended by Jackson Lipkin J for 12 months from 10 July 1986 – further ex parte extension by Sears J on 12 November 1987 for 12 months from 10 July 1987 – writ served in America in January 1988 bearing stamp only for 1987–1988 extension, not for 1986–1987 extension – whether writ validly served – whether Ord. 6 r 8(3) mandatory – whether failure to stamp curable as mere irregularity under Ord. 2 r 1(2) – whether ex parte extension order should be discharged and declaration made under Ord. 12 r 8 – whether absence of acknowledgement of service fatal – held: Ord. 6 r 8(3) uses the mandatory word 'must' and the rule is important to inform the recipient of proper extension – absence of the 1986–1987 stamp was a clear breach not cured by the later 1987–1988 stamp – irregularities under the Rules of the Supreme Court range from insubstantial to substantial and extension/service of writs are not mere matters of form – Metroinvist Ansalt v Commercial Union (1985) 1 WLR 513 considered – court exercised discretion to make declaration under Ord. 12 r 8(1)(b) and discharge ex parte order under Ord. 12 r 8(1)(d) – complaint regarding acknowledgement of service rejected as moot because a fresh acknowledgement had been served – application allowed in part.
Legal issues: Effect of missing official stamp on extended writ on its validity for service · Whether Ord. 2 r 1(2) cures the failure to stamp and whether ex parte extension order should be discharged under Ord. 12 r 8
Outcome: Application by 4th Defendant allowed in part: a declaration was made and the ex parte order extending the validity of the writ was discharged. The ground alleging non-service of the acknowledgement of service was dismissed as moot.