Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth and another [2013] EWHC 1693 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 220 (Jun)
The effect of CPR 7.2 (1) and CPR 2.6(1) was that, as a general rule, a claim form was the document issued by the court on which the court seal was placed. Accordingly, when CPR 6.3(1) stated that “a claim form may…be served by any of the following methods”, as a general rule, it was service of a hard copy document as issued and sealed by the court. A photocopy of that document was not sufficient. There were clearly exceptions. When a claim form was served by fax or other means of electronic communication under CPR 6.3(1)(d) in accordance with Practice Direction 6A, necessarily there was not service of the original document issued and sealed by the court. In such circumstances, the hard or soft copy of the fax or the soft copy or print out of the attachment to an e-mail was the document served but in each case the hard or soft copy represented a copy
