header-logo header-logo

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

The bailiff is not for hire

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
FIFA’s 2026 Men's World Cup is already mired in controversy, with complaints over ‘excessive prices’ and opaque ticketing. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys warns that governing bodies may face scrutiny under EU competition law, with allegations of a ‘dominant—if not monopolistic—position’ in ticket sales
Ten years after Brexit, UK and EU trade mark regimes are drifting apart in practice if not principle. Writing in NLJ this week, Roger Lush and Lara Elder of Carpmaels & Ransford highlight tighter UK scrutiny after SkyKick, where overly broad filings may signal ‘bad faith’
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
back-to-top-scroll