The Plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of a statement of claim on the Defendant, Shakil Ahmad, or alternatively for substituted service or to dispense with service.
The core issue was the Defendant's lawyer's refusal to accept service despite being retained and engaging in substantive discussions.
The court found the lawyer's conduct to be contrary to professional obligations and the principles of expeditious proceedings.
The motion to validate service was granted, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis due to the unnecessary nature of the motion caused by the Defendant's conduct.
