The appellant sued the respondents for libel arising from a newspaper article.
Prior to filing a statement of defence, one of the individual respondents successfully moved to strike the claim against him on the basis that he was not personally served with a libel notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the alternative mode of service in s. 5(1)—delivery to a grown-up person at the defendant's chief office—applies to all defendants, including individuals.
Delivery of the notice to an assistant at the respondent's campaign headquarters constituted effective service.
