Email Service of a £100m Claim Form Ruled Invalid in Coal Pension v Mace

Email Service of a £100m Claim Form Ruled Invalid in Coal Pension v Mace

The Technology and Construction Court has refused to rescue a construction claim worth more than £100m after finding that email service of the claim form on the defendants’ solicitors fell short of the rules. In Coal Pension Properties Ltd v Mace Living Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC), handed down on 26 May 2026, the court held that a claimant cannot rely on service by email unless the recipient has agreed to it in writing and the solicitor has confirmed authority to accept documents.

The facts behind the email service dispute

The claim form was issued in December 2021 in a long running dispute over a building completed in 2011. The parties agreed a series of extensions for service, fixing a final deadline of 2 February 2026. At 16:46 on that date, the claimant’s solicitors sent the claim form and particulars of claim by email to the firm acting for the Mace defendants. That firm replied that it had never been asked to accept service by email and, in any event, held no authority to accept service on behalf of its clients.

The claimant applied for a declaration that service complied with CPR 6.7 and Practice Direction 6A, or alternatively for an order permitting service by an alternative method under CPR 6.15. The defendants cross applied for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim because it had not been served in time.

What CPR Part 6 requires for email service

Under CPR Part 6, a claim form may be served electronically, but only where Practice Direction 6A is met. Paragraph 4.1 requires the party to be served, or its solicitor, to have indicated in writing a willingness to accept documents that way and to have given the address to be used. Paragraph 4.2 requires the sender to confirm any file size or format limits first. Separately, CPR 6.7 allows service on a solicitor only where that solicitor has stated in writing that they are instructed to accept it.

The claimant argued that a draft application notice from 2023, which listed two of the firm’s solicitors and their email addresses, amounted to the necessary notice. It also pointed to wording in an email footer used during the pandemic.
:
 

How the court decided the point

The court rejected both arguments. The draft application notice concerned an extension of time, not service, so it could not be read as a clear statement of authority to accept the claim form. Drawing on Barton v Wright Hassall LLP and the earlier Paragon decision, the judge stressed that treating a solicitor as having accepted service without a clear confirmation could expose that solicitor to regulatory risk. The pandemic footer had been dropped in July 2022 and did not meet the requirements either. The court dealt only briefly with the remaining email service arguments, since the authority point was enough to dispose of the claim.

Turning to alternative service, the court applied the factors drawn from the Good Law Project case: whether the claimant took reasonable steps to serve properly, whether the defendant knew the contents of the claim form, and what prejudice would follow. Because the claimant had never asked whether the firm could accept service, the first factor told against it, and relief under CPR 6.15 was refused.

What the ruling changes for litigators

The decision is a reminder that a valid step at the last moment depends on groundwork done long before. A process server who confirms, in writing, who is authorised to accept service and by what method removes the exact gap that defeated the claimant here. Personal service, or a method agreed in advance, leaves no room for a jurisdiction challenge built on a defective step.

If you are approaching a limitation deadline and need service carried out and evidenced correctly, speak to the Tremark team and complete the form below to discuss your matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is email service of a claim form ever valid?

Yes, but only where the party or its solicitor has confirmed in writing that it will accept documents that way and has given the address to use. Without that written agreement, the attempt can fail.

Can a solicitor be treated as authorised to accept service automatically?

No. A solicitor must state in writing that they are instructed to accept service. Listing an email address for another purpose does not create that authority.

What should a claimant do near a limitation deadline?

Settle the method of service well before the deadline and confirm who can accept it, so a defective step does not leave the claim time barred.