N125 certificate of service - date of service?

[GCH]

[EDIT - typo in subject - N215, not 125]

A quick question for the legal ears on here if I may..

I have to file a certificate of service with the court, and form N215 has two boxes for a date:
- On what day did you serve
- The date of service is

So, If something was sent via 9 am special delivery on, say, Monday Feb 1st, and signed for by the defendant at 8am on Tuesday Feb 2nd (proofs of both of these retained), what dates would I put on the form?
Did I serve on Feb 2nd (the date delivered), and the date of service is Feb 3rd? Or did I serve on Feb 1st (ie, the date mailed), and the date of service is Feb 3rd?

This legalese is sometimes confusing and don't want this rejected/delayed any further than it has been already.
Thanks in advance

Edited by GCH on Thursday 15th August 16:04

[agtlaw]

On what day did you serve - 1st Feb 2019
The date of service is - 3rd Feb 2019

The actual date of service was 2nd Feb but the method used was Special Delivery post. Therefore, “first class post or other service which provides for next day delivery” - see CPR r 6.3(1)(b).

I don’t know if you served a claim form (Rule 6.14) or another document (Rule 6.26). In any event, there is an irrebuttable presumption that service was effected two business days after posting.

Edited by agtlaw on Monday 19th August 23:42

[Pro Bono]

agtlaw said:

2nd Feb.

No.

The date of deemed service is set out in rule 6.26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and it's also printed on the back of the N215.

Where it's served by post it's deemed to have been served on the second business day after it was posted, so if it was posted on Monday 1 February it was deemed to have been served on Wednesday 3 February, even if in actual terms it was received by the recipient on Tuesday 2 February.

The law is, indeed, an ass.

[KevinCamaroSS]

Pro Bono said:

No.

The date of deemed service is set out in rule 6.26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and it's also printed on the back of the N215.

Where it's served by post it's deemed to have been served on the second business day after it was posted, so if it was posted on Monday 1 February it was deemed to have been served on Wednesday 3 February, even if in actual terms it was received by the recipient on Tuesday 2 February.

The law is, indeed, an ass.

But is was not sent by normal post, it was sent by Special Delivery, therefore next day guaranteed, so, 2nd Feb as per AGTLaw

[Pro Bono]

KevinCamaroSS said:

But is was not sent by normal post, it was sent by Special Delivery, therefore next day guaranteed, so, 2nd Feb as per AGTLaw

Again, no.

Firstly, AGTLaw has amended his reply, to confirm that service was deemed to have taken place on 3 February, which was what I said.

Secondly, you have to understand that the court rules regarding service take no account of things like Special Delivery. It makes no difference whether the document was sent by ordinary first class post or Special Delivery - so far as the Civil Procedure Rules are concerned the date of service is that set out in the Rules. And a document sent by post is deemed to have been served on the second business day after posting - in your case on 3 February.

The fact that it was actually delivered on 2 February is therefore entirely irrelevant.

[KungFuPanda]

Yep, when serving docs or a Claim Form, don’t bother with Special Delivery or Signed For. Regular post will do.

Edited by KungFuPanda on Tuesday 20th August 15:13

[Pro Bono]

I should perhaps add that if you were ordered to serve by 2 February, and because of the deemed service rules you have failed to do so, you will need to apply for `relief from sanctions'.

This is because if you fail to comply with a Court Order the presumption is that you will be punished, often by your case / defence being struck out. You therefore need to make an application explaining why you failed to comply (e.g. because you didn't understand the court rules) and asking the court for leniency.

In this case I'd expect that you would be granted leniency, as in practical terms you did actually comply, but it wouldn't be safe to rely on that assumption, and if there's anything significant at stake you should make the application sooner rather than later.