Section 70: Who serves court documents

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13881/2556 (2013)

   An order that the plaintiff arrange service of the summons puts on the plaintiff the duty imposed by section 70 paragraph two to carry the case forward within the time the court fixes. Where the plaintiff has signed the record acknowledging that order and then does nothing within that time, the case is one of failing to prosecute under section 174(2), and the court may strike it from the cause list under section 132(1). In a private criminal prosecution before the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court those provisions apply through section 26 of the Act establishing that court together with section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

   In a private prosecution for copyright infringement the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court found a prima facie case, accepted the plaint, ordered summonses to the three defendants returnable on the day of the case-management hearing, and directed the plaintiff to arrange service within seven days; the plaintiff signed the record acknowledging the order. Nothing was served, and on the court officer report the court struck the case out. The Supreme Court held that issuing the summonses complied with section 26 of the Act establishing that court and section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also gave effect to the plaintiff own prayer, and that directing the plaintiff to serve them imposed the duty in section 70 paragraph two. Having acknowledged the order and done nothing within the time fixed, the plaintiff had failed to prosecute under section 174(2), and the striking out under section 132(1) was correct.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3966/2551 (2008)

   Where the court orders that a writ of execution be served and directs the plaintiff to pay the service fee, that direction is lawful under Section 70 paragraph two, and the plaintiff cannot escape the service fee obligation.

   After a writ of execution was issued, the plaintiff asked that a court officer serve it and objected to being charged the service fee. The trial court held its order correct under Section 70 paragraph two and refused to change it. On the plaintiff's direct appeal, the issue was whether ordering the plaintiff to pay the service fee for the writ was lawful.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6197/2550 (2007)

   Paying the fee for service to the court officer under Section 70, final paragraph, has the same effect as the party having delivered the copy for service, so the party is not at fault if the court officer thereafter fails to complete the actual service.

   A third party claimant who had paid the service fee to the court officer under Section 70, final paragraph, was treated as having handed over the copy of the claim for service to the enforcement officer as the court had ordered. Whether the officer then actually delivered it was a separate matter that had already been settled below without challenge.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.