LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Service of Process – Pre-Action Notice – Place of Abode of Intending Plaintiff – Whether Material Particular
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The place of abode of the plaintiff is not considered material to expressing their intention to sue the defendant; after all, should the plaintiff issue a writ of summons, their address of service would be contained in the writ; at any rate, the plaintiff was no stranger to the defendant having been its employee and having been shown to have exchanged correspondence with the defendant after suspension from duty and dismissal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"I do not consider the place of abode of the plaintiff as material to expressing his intention to sue the defendant. After all, should the plaintiff issue a writ of summons, which he did later, his address of service would be contained in the writ. At any rate, the plaintiff was no stranger to the defendant having been its employee and having been shown to have exchanged correspondence with the defendant after his suspension from duty and dismissal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Place of abode in pre-action notice is not material particular (see Principle 642). Not material because: (1) Notice purpose is expressing intention to sue—abode doesn’t affect this; (2) Writ will contain address of service—proper address provided then; (3) Parties already known to each other—defendant knows plaintiff. “Not material to expressing intention” means: plaintiff’s address not essential to notifying intention to sue, notice achieves purpose without it, and omission doesn’t defeat notice. Writ contains address: When plaintiff issues writ: proper address for service included, defendant gets necessary contact information, and no prejudice from earlier omission. Parties’ relationship: Here plaintiff was defendant’s employee—parties knew each other, had ongoing correspondence, and defendant could contact plaintiff. Therefore: address omission caused no confusion, defendant knew who was suing, and no prejudice resulted. This serves: substance over form, focusing on notice purpose (warning of suit), and preventing technical defeats when no harm caused. Material particular means: essential element, significant detail, or omission causing prejudice/confusion. Address here: not essential to notice purpose, didn’t cause prejudice (parties knew each other), and wasn’t material particular. This prevents: invalidating notices for technical omissions, requiring perfection in pre-action notices, and defeating claims on immaterial defects. Courts assess: did omission defeat notice purpose? cause prejudice? create confusion? If no: not material particular.