A claim form served in a multi occupancy building was not served at the defendant’s usual or last known residence as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Summary
The High Court held that a claim form that was served in a multi occupancy building had not been served at the defendant’s ‘usual or last known residence’.
Background
Ivanchev (I) had instructed a tracing service to locate an address for service of a claim on Velli (V). The tracing service provided an address. I then instructed a process service to serve the claim on V at that address.
When the process service tried to serve the claim at that address, the person living there stated that they were not V, but the claim was served there anyway.
V later produced evidence that they lived in a different apartment in the same building, and claimed that I's claim had not been validly served on them.
The court's decision
The court dismissed I's application for default judgment, on the basis that the claim form and particulars of claim had not been properly served on V. The court gave I one month to serve the claim and particulars at the correct address.
CPR 7.5 contains the rules for how a claim form may be served. There are options for service by post, fax, email and personal service as well as delivery at ‘the relevant place’.
If the defendant has not provided an address for service, CPR 6.9(2) states that for individuals ‘the relevant place’ is the usual or last known address. If the claimant has reason to believe the defendant is not residing at the address, they must take reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant’s current address.