header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010
Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Defendant's DOB

The form of acknowledgement of service (revised form N9) contains a box in which...

The form of acknowledgement of service (revised form N9) contains a box in which the defendant is asked to record his date of birth. I have just had an acknowledgement rejected by the court because the box was not completed. I can find nothing in CPR 10 or PD10 which requires me to provide this information. Was the court correct?

The requirement to provide the date of birth, if known, is in PD16 para 10.7 and extends to provision of the date in an admission, defence, defence and counterclaim, reply or other response. Therefore, the court was correct. If the date of birth is unknown then this should be stated in the acknowledgement etc. It would be helpful if the requirement was mentioned or there was an appropriate cross-reference in PD 10.

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll