Thorpe claimed the idea came from an Australian case she had read about where a lawyer served legally binding documents to a couple on behalf of his client, a financial lender. Thorpe wondered if she could do the same in the UK. After Thorpe requested permission ot the court to proceed in this manner, the UK Hastings County Court granted permission for the court order to be notified to a defendant via the Social Network of Facebook.
Thorpe stated:
“It is great to see that the courts are willing to embrace new technology.
Being able to use Facebook to do so will certainly assist in the case and allow our client creditor the possibility of obtaining further information to enforce the debt.”
As Thorpe explained, it is interesting to note that it is not the first time that a Social Network has been used to serve a court order. Twitter was used used as such a medium. A similar court judgment was issued in October 2009 of Lewison J in the High Court, allowing service of an order through Twitter, and court judgments in Australia and New Zealand, allowing service through Facebook.
Some specific points need to be pointed out:
Evidence is required in applications for alternative service including
o the reason why an order is required;
o what alternative method or place is recommended; and
o the reason the applicant thinks that the document is likely to get to the person to be served by the method or at the place recommended.
Conclusion?
It seems that in today's modern world, when a party faces difficulties in serving documentation, the court has the authority to allow service by an unconventional method or at an different place, including 'The Cloud'.
