- Cited — Eric Walton v Pickerings Solicitors & Anor 2023-06-06
“…Mr Brown referred to Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 at [16] where Lord Sumption said that rules of court had to identify some formal step that constituted service of the claim form on the defendant, adding:…”
- Applied — The Good Law Project (R on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2022-03-24
“…The Judge declined to make an order under CPR 6.15 on the basis that there was no “good reason” to do so, applying the reasoning in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12; [2018] 1 WLR 1119 (“Barton”). She went on to refer to two first instance decisions in which permission for alternative service was refused: Piepenbrock v Asso…”
- Followed — Walter Tzvi Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors. 2021-12-21
“…laim. As a general rule, service of originating process is the act by which the defendant is subjected to the court’s jurisdiction: Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119 [8]. Although a case in which service is set aside on forum non conveniens grounds following an application under Part 11 is not so easily c…”
- Considered — Gell v 32 St John's Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd 2021-05-24
“…my conclusion more broadly. The Supreme Court in Barton v. Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 considered the relevance of the status of a party as a self-representing party to the application of the Civil Procedure Rules. Lord Sumption, in the majority,…”
- Cited — HH Aluminium & Building Products Ltd & Anor v Bell & Anor (Rev 1) 2020-11-09
“…(3). He referred to the fact that judges regularly refer to a claim form not served within the 4 months as having “expired”: see eg Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 at [1] per Lord Sumption, and Woodward v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 985 at [2] per Asplin LJ, where in each case the judge referred to…”
- Cited — Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd 2020-07-31
“…th the order of DJ Doyle, was a significant default, which is only exacerbated by the unhappy history. As Lord Sumption stressed in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119, the service of proceedings is a critically important step. He said at paragraph 9(2):…”
- Cited — Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2020-01-30
“…The same point may be made about Barton v Wright Hassall llp [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119, which concerned an application by the claimant, a litigant in person, for an order under CPR 6.15 validating service of the claim form retr…”
- Applied — Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh 2019-07-25
“…when attending the hearing, for my part I consider that this factor carries little weight in the equation. As Lord Sumption said in Barton v Wright Hassell LLP [2018] UKSC 12 at [18], the rules and procedures of court apply equally to represented and unrepresented parties, and the fact that a party is unrepresented can at most have …”
- Cited — AB (Termination of Pregnancy), Re 2019-07-11
“…I am conscious that, to borrow from Lord Sumption in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119, this is an appeal:…”
- Cited — Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors 2019-05-17
“…ssion, the Claimant should not be accorded any leniency by virtue simply of his status as a litigant in person (seeLord Sumption in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119). Ms Marzec submitted that, on a fair reading of the transcript, the Claimant had not made such a concession.…”
- Cited — Ogiehor v Ogiehor 2018-11-02
“…In its recent judgment in Barton (Appellant) v Wright Hassall LLP (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court provided some guidance on the standard of compliance to be expected by a litigant in person:…”
- Cited — Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) 2018-10-16
“…aling with these rules, including Vinos v Marks and Spencer PLC [2001] EWCA Civ 1415, [2001] 3 All ER 784 (CA); and, more recently, Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119. In the latter case, a claimant acting in person purported to serve a claim form and particulars of claim by email in circumstances where pr…”