How a Blanket Alternative Service Order Could Affect You

When people are involved in court proceedings, there are strict rules about how important court papers and orders must be delivered. Traditionally, some orders, like injunctions, had to be “personally served,” which means someone hands the document in person. 

A “blanket alternative service order” changes this. It allows all documents in a case to be sent by different methods, such as email, instead of being handed face to face for the duration of the proceedings. 

In a recent Family Court case, the judge confirmed that where the court had already ordered that email service was valid for all documents in the case, this removed the need for later orders to be personally handed over, including an injunction that was later breached by the defendant, who was then found in contempt of court for that breach. The court noted that the defendant had received the injunction by email, had attended the hearing at which the injunction was discussed, and understood it, but chose to breach it.

Why does this matter? 

This means service by email must be taken seriously. If the court has ordered that email service counts for all documents, you could be treated as properly served with an injunction and face contempt consequences for breach, even if no one physically hands over the order. The Family Court made clear that an earlier order permitting service by email for all documents in the case effectively dispensed with the need for personal delivery of the later injunction. The judge also made clear that the rules on contempt still expect personal service unless the court orders otherwise, but where such an “otherwise” order is in place, email can be enough. The court preferred this approach over the view that the order must spell out, in terms, that personal service is waived specifically for contempt purposes.

Even if there is a technical problem with the way papers were served, the court can sometimes fix that problem after the event if there is no unfairness. In the same case, the judge said that any defect in service could be waived retrospectively because there was no injustice to the defendant, and because the powers governing contempt applications allow the court to correct procedural defects in how the application was started or conducted. The court explained that, although the rules no longer expressly mention dispensing with personal service after the event in certain situations, the court still has a common law power to waive defects in service in contempt cases, and that power is also reflected in the relevant practice direction.

What are the practical implications?

If the court has made a blanket order allowing alternative service, expect key documents, including injunctions, to arrive by the method named in that order, often by email. It is important to ensure contact details are up to date, checking email (and spam folders) regularly, and act immediately on anything received from the court. Attending hearings and engaging with the process will not protect a party from consequences if they later ignore an order received by the agreed method. In the reported case, sentencing was put off allowing the defendant to show that the breach had not caused harm, but the finding of contempt still stood because the order had been properly served by email under the blanket order and had been understood.

Early advice can help you avoid mistakes about service and reduce the risk of contempt findings for breaching an order that has been validly served by alternative means.

If you are looking for support with your family law matter, please get in contact today.