Legal Briefing Note 4 – Addresses for Service

Written by Jonathan Wragg on Tuesday, January 26, 2021

This note covers the importance of ascertaining the Defendant’s correct address for the service of legal proceedings.

When PDC Law is asked to commence legal proceedings against a debtor it will need to ensure that it knows the correct address for service.

You may hold a number of addresses for the Defendant and pass one or more of those to us. Alternatively, the documentation we are sent is likely to contain one or more possible addresses for the Defendant. Possibilities include:

• the property address
• an address included on title documents held at Land Registry
• an address set out in a lease/ transfer
• a correspondence address
• a registered office (in the case of a company)
• another address provided by the Defendant
• a trace address.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) deal with all of these issues. Separate rules deal with:

• service on companies
• service on solicitor or other lawyer
• service where the Defendant gives an address for service
• service by an agreed contractual method
• service out of the jurisdiction
• service where the Defendant does not give an address for service.

In practice, however, the first five methods of service arise rarely except, perhaps, in the case of service on a company at its registered office. The rest of this briefing note concentrates on the last method – where the Defendant is an individual and does not give an address for service.

The CPR provides that in such circumstances the Defendant must be served at his usual or last known residence.

The use of the word “residence” needs to be given some thought. It does not mean the same as “address”. Accordingly, it is not enough under the CPR to serve the Defendant at his usual or last known address

This might appear to be a fine distinction but it is a distinction which matters.

We should not assume that any of the following are, necessarily, the Defendant’s usual or last known residence:

• the property address (it might be a buy to let or the Defendant might not live there for another reason);
• the address held by Land Registry as such an address may be well out of date; or
• an address set out in a lease (unless it makes specific reference to the service of legal proceedings – which is rare).

If you have no knowledge of the Defendant’s usual or last known residence relying on the rule (CPR 6.9) would be risky. Difficulties can even arise where you genuinely believe that the Defendant resides at a given address but does not. The reasonableness of the belief is insufficient. As caselaw currently stands whether an address is the Defendant’s usual or last known residence is an objective test. In a recent case service was not effected where a claim form was posted to an address at which, contrary to the Claimant’s belief, the Defendant had never resided.

Where you suspect that an address you have for the Defendant is an address at which the Defendant no longer resides reasonable steps must be taken to ascertain the address of the Defendant’s current residence. If, having taken reasonable steps, we are still unable to ascertain the Defendant’s current residence we must consider whether there is an alternative place where an alternative method by which service may be effected. If there is such a place or a method we must make an application for service by an alternative method or at an alternative place.

We can only serve at the Defendant’s last usual or last known address if we cannot ascertain the defendant’s current residence and we cannot ascertain an alternative place or an alternative method for service.

Consequences of ineffective service

Where documents are not served in accordance with the rules the Defendant can make an application to set aside any judgments obtained as of right. This could be many months (or even years) after judgment was entered and has cost implications. It could also mean that service of the claim form has not been effected within the 4 month time limit set out in the rules and, accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the claim.

Where an application to set aside has been made by a Defendant PDC Law will consider whether we should make our own application seeking orders:

• that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the Defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service; and/ or
• to dispense with service of the claim form; and/or
• to extend the time for service of the claim form.