Personal injury lawyers urge rule change to prevent delay tactics by defendants in email service
Personal injury lawyers are calling for a rule change to prevent defendants from using the refusal to accept service via email as a delay tactic in legal proceedings. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has expressed strong support for proposals to ban such refusals, describing them as “long overdue” and a form of “gamesmanship” that disrupts the timely progress of legitimate cases.
Currently, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is consulting on a potential change that would require firms to accept service by email without needing to confirm consent in each case. This move is aimed at aligning legal processes with modern working practices and eliminating tactics that unnecessarily hold up cases.
Matthew Tuff, president of APIL, emphasized that email communication is the standard method between parties up until court proceedings commence. He argued that refusing to accept service of court documents by email appears to be a deliberate effort to delay cases and frustrate the process, potentially causing claimants to miss crucial deadlines. “This smacks of gamesmanship,” said Tuff, who further pointed out that these tactics lead to extra costs and uncertainty for claimants who are already vulnerable.
Embed from Getty Images
The refusal to accept email service often results in additional administrative work for the serving party, who must chase confirmation or resort to other means of service. This, according to APIL, is inefficient and detrimental to both the legal professionals involved and the injured claimants seeking justice.
The CPRC’s consultation highlighted that these delays and additional expenses are frequently caused by parties or their solicitors refusing electronic service despite prior communication by email. In some cases, the party serving documents only discovers the refusal after the expiration of the limitation period, complicating the process and leading to missed deadlines.
Under the current rules, while service can be made via fax, email, or other electronic means, the recipient must consent to electronic service unless a court order for alternative service is obtained. APIL proposes that the onus should be on the recipient to notify the serving party of any limitations to accepting email service. If no objections are raised, it should be assumed that email service is acceptable.
Furthermore, APIL acknowledges that while the new rules should allow for more streamlined service, additional safeguards could be put in place for cases involving litigants in person or other special circumstances. By revising these rules, APIL believes that the process could be made more efficient, reducing delays and improving access to justice for claimants.