Service of documents is perfectly adequate if done by email
provided there is some kind of acknowledgement at the other end that it has
There are certain provisions with regard to the service of
documents, for example, they are deemed served 48 hours after posting and that
provided you have proof of posting, then first class post is deemed to be 100%
reliable even if it is not received provided, it is not returned to the sender.
I must admit I find this latter point (which is well-established
in law) absolutely bizarre but I do not make the law, I simply regurgitate it.
To make a sweeping statement such as "few if any organisations
will accept service of legal documents by email" is an exaggeration. It is true
that many solicitors letterheads specifically preclude service of documents by
fax or email.
There is no dispute over the fact that the document has been
received and in my opinion therefore it is good service but to prevent the
argument, I would pop it in the post in any event. That is always good practice.
There is a potential argument to be had in the recipient wanted to
waste a lot of court time and everybody's money and time by getting the court
to determine whether or not notice served electronically, even if it has been
received, is not sufficient purely because it does not comply with the order
says which is what I quote below.
The order specifically says ""requisite
notice" means notice in the appropriate form set out in Schedule 2 or in a form
substantially to the like effect, but shall not include notice served using
electronic communications; and"
I think that whoever has done this is simply flexing his
authoritative muscles to appear knowledgeable.
Does that answer the question? Can I assist further or answer any