header-logo header-logo

The bailiff is not for hire

17 February 2017
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Is the court entitled to refuse a request for bailiff service of proceedings where the prescribed fee has been paid or there is an entitlement to fee remission?

In general, it is a matter for the court’s discretion and bailiff service will usually be declined if not requested by a litigant in person. The FPR at PD6A, para 11.4 expressly provide in relation to service of applications for matrimonial and civil partnership orders that a request will rarely be granted where the party is legally represented and that it will be necessary for the representative to show why service by bailiff is required rather than by process server. A similar approach to that applying in family business can be expected in civil business with the CPR not granting any specific right to bailiff service except for Pt 71 orders to attend court for questioning (see PD71, para 3). The fee for bailiff service is £110 unless the requesting party obtains remission (help with fees). Bailiff service is unsuccessful? The fee is lost.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll