Use of AI and contempt of court
A junior lawyer’s communication with the court contained a misleading statement of the law, including text that purported to be a quotation from statute. The quotation did not exist and nor did anything like it exist. The court requested an explanation of why this was but did not receive a satisfactory answer. The real answer was that AI had invented the quotation. The junior did not check it and neither did the solicitors supervising them. Legal professionals bear ultimate responsibility for their work and cannot outsource the process of legal research or legal reasoning to AI. It was disproportionate to consider contempt proceedings further; the SRA was best placed to investigate what had happened (Cork v Smith).
Service of claim on defendant’s solicitor
Where there had been no express notification that the defendant’s solicitor was instructed to accept service of the claim form, service by email on the solicitor was invalid. The claimant could not rely on a 2023 draft application notice relating to an extension of time for service of the claim form which included the email addresses of the defendant’s solicitors as contacts for service to which documents about that application should be sent (Coal Pension Properties Ltd v Mace Living Ltd).
Service of claim form on PO Box
A PO Box address is not "a place of business" for the purpose of service of a claim under CPR 6.9(2) ("Any place within the jurisdiction where the corporation carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction"). Service of a claim form by post to a PO Box is invalid (Dalescope Ltd v Acorn Accumulation Ltd).
Legal advice privilege
Although the authorities state that legal advice privilege applies only to communications between a client and their lawyer, it can also apply to documents created by client employees authorised to instruct lawyers on behalf of a company or organisation for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. This conclusion was not precluded by the decision in Three Rivers (No 5) since the Court of Appeal did not consider the status of internal documents created by those within the authorised client group (Aabar Holdings SARL v Glencore PLC).
Security for costs and detailed assessment
The court has no jurisdiction to order security for costs of a detailed assessment after conclusion of the substantive proceedings. Detailed assessment proceedings have their own particular procedure in CPR 47 and there is no express power to grant security for the costs, nor is there an express importation of CPR 25. The only interim measure provided for in CPR 47 is the power to order an interim certificate which is a method of providing security for a claim (Magomedov v Rabinovich).
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.