In November 2017, the author witnessed a Family Court in Nottingham allow a Litigant in Person (LiP) to serve legal notice to his partner (the absent respondent) through the medium of Facebook Messenger. The issues were emotive: The applicant urgently sought disclosure for the whereabouts of their infant children, with whom she had absconded from their home. Evidence presented in Court showed the respondent had a history of substance abuse and mental illness. Consequently, she and their children may have been at risk of physical harm.
While the applicant did not know her physical location, he was able to demonstrate a history of regular, ongoing communication between them via social media. After deliberation, the Judge, at his own instigation, allowed the plaintiff to serve notice, instructing disclosure via Facebook Messenger. He stated his confidence that the respondent would receive and understand the notice and emphasised that the expediency of this method would enable the Court to “move quickly” to next steps, in the event of non-compliance by the respondent.
This report seeks to assess the prevalence of the use of Social Media in Civil Procedure in the UK; its origins, legality and future integration.
Table of Contents
Background
Abstract
The Civil Procedure Rules
Legality
Landmarks
Progress
The Family
Regulation
"A Safe Haven For Terrorists"
Parliament’s Response
Opportunities to Clarify
Money: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
Money Again
Disconnected Logic?
Jurisdiction(s)
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The core objective of this report is to evaluate the prevalence, legality, and future implications of utilizing social media platforms as a conduit for legal service within the United Kingdom's civil, criminal, and family court systems. The research investigates whether current legislative frameworks adequately address or define the role of social media in formal legal proceedings, balancing the need for procedural efficiency against the potential for legal uncertainty and human rights concerns.
- The evolution of legal service methods within the UK Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
- Jurisdictional challenges and the impact of Brexit on cross-border legal communication.
- The tension between technological progress and established statutes regarding electronic evidence.
- The liability and regulatory responsibilities of Social Media Providers (SMPs).
- The consequences of reduced Legal Aid (LASPO) on the rising number of Litigants in Person.
Excerpt from the Publication
Landmarks
A “landmark case” would normally rescue the law from uncertainty: Entores v Miles identified how the new “Telex” machine separated instantaneous communications from the Adams v Lindsell “Postal Rule”. It recognised that communication systems had advanced exponentially and the rules needed to advance with them. Since then, however the phrase “instantaneous communications” has also been lost in statute. What is Social Media, if not instantaneous communication?
In Blaney v Persons Unknown (October 2009) the applicant, a political “blogger”, sought an injunction against an anonymous individual impersonating him on Twitter, to cease his posts (along with further actions and disclosure) as they allegedly breached the applicant’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
Due to the Defendant’s anonymity in “cyberspace” and apparent reliance thereon, the High Court permitted that the injunction be served via Twitter under CPR 6.15. The message sent to the Defendant’s Twitter account included a link to the injunction, which the Defendant would have received as soon as he logged into his account. The court was therefore satisfied that Twitter was both an effective and reliable method of service.
Summary of Chapters
Background: This section introduces the rise of social media in legal contexts, illustrated by a 2017 case where a court permitted service via Facebook Messenger.
The Civil Procedure Rules: This chapter traces the origins of the CPR, emphasizing the mandate for "just," "fair," and "understandable" legal processes as advocated by Lord Woolf.
Legality: This section explores how criminal and civil courts treat social media under current statutes, noting the absence of explicit rules despite the rise of digital service.
Landmarks: This chapter reviews key legal precedents, such as Blaney v Persons Unknown, and their influence on the acceptance of digital communication in courts.
Progress: This section summarizes the global adoption of social media for substituted service, noting the varying approaches taken by the UK, USA, and other jurisdictions.
The Family: This section analyzes how Family Courts handle social media, particularly in sensitive cases involving children and parental rights.
Regulation: This chapter details the impact of GDPR on ISP/SMP liability and the responsibility of providers regarding personal and sensitive data.
"A Safe Haven For Terrorists": This section examines the fallout of the Fusilier Lee Rigby murder case and the political criticism leveled at SMPs for failing to regulate harmful content.
Parliament’s Response: This chapter analyzes the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the continued legislative refusal to explicitly define "social media."
Opportunities to Clarify: This section discusses the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and the ongoing confusion regarding what constitutes a legally admissible electronic document.
Money: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: This chapter evaluates the impact of funding cuts on litigants and the subsequent reliance on social media as a cost-effective legal tool.
Money Again: This section looks at the financial pressures on SMPs and how market volatility and data scandals impact their cooperation with legal authorities.
Disconnected Logic?: This section discusses the problems with "blocking" and "unfriending," and why this might conflict with the requirements of formal legal service.
Jurisdiction(s): This chapter addresses the legal complexities caused by Brexit and the potential loss of cross-border effectiveness for digital service.
Conclusion: This final section calls for the formal integration of social media into the legal framework to avoid future uncertainty.
Keywords
Legal Service, Social Media, Civil Procedure, CPR, Family Court, Litigants in Person, GDPR, Electronic Communication, Substituted Service, Jurisdiction, Legal Reform, Privacy, Evidence, Digital Regulation, Technology Law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this report?
The report examines the legality and practice of serving legal notices through social media platforms within the UK court system, analyzing how courts attempt to reconcile modern digital behavior with traditional legal rules.
Which court systems are primarily discussed?
The study primarily focuses on the Civil, Criminal, and Family Courts of the United Kingdom.
What is the main objective of the author?
The primary goal is to determine whether current UK legal frameworks are sufficient to handle the rise of social media in court proceedings, specifically regarding the "fairness" and "certainty" of substituted service.
Which scientific/legal method is applied?
The report employs a legal-doctrinal approach, reviewing statutes, case law precedents, and government reports to assess the current gap between judicial practice and legislative transparency.
What topics are explored in the main body?
The main body covers the history of the Civil Procedure Rules, the impact of GDPR on provider liability, the influence of political reports on terrorism, and the financial pressures affecting both Litigants in Person and Social Media Providers.
How are the keywords defined?
The keywords highlight the intersection of digital technology, legal procedure, human rights, and the financial accessibility of justice in the modern era.
Why does the author mention the "Blaney" case?
The Blaney case is highlighted as a landmark example of the court allowing communication via Twitter for an injunction, demonstrating how the courts have begun to creatively interpret "alternative methods of service."
What is the primary concern regarding Brexit mentioned in the paper?
The author argues that Brexit may significantly hinder the ability of UK courts to use social media for cross-border legal service, as the current integrated jurisdictional landscape may be severed.
Does the report conclude that social media is a reliable tool for legal service?
The conclusion suggests that while social media can be efficient, it currently lacks clear regulatory oversight and identity verification, making it a risky and fragmented solution that the law needs to address more formally.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Guy Tinsley (Autor:in), 2021, Legal Service via Social Media. What could possibly go wrong?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1561368
