Practice – Pleading. The defendant's application to strike out of the claimant's claim, due to defective service of the claim documents, pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c), was dismissed, as disposal of the case on the basis of a failure to serve the claim documents would not be fair in the circumstances. The Chancery Division further refused to summarily dismiss the claimant's claim, as although the claimant's assertion that an oral tenancy for a period of ten years had been created was rejected, the claimant's alternative submission, that a periodic tenancy had been created, raised a serious question to be tried.