Court rules as to service.
Service of Proceedings Under CPR Part 6 (England & Wales)
Facing litigation or considering court action? Carruthers Law offers expert litigation services with precise strategic guidance to safeguard your interests. Our specialist solicitors handle your disputes effectively, ensuring the best outcomes. Contact us today for confidential, professional advice—call 0151 541 2040 or email us directly.
Introduction:
Proper service of court documents is a fundamental step in litigation. In England and Wales, the rules on service are primarily contained in Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), along with Practice Direction 6A. These rules prescribe how and where documents must be served to effectively bring them to a party’s attention. The aim is to ensure that a defendant actually receives notice of the proceedings and has the chance to participate, while providing certainty and predictability in procedure. Errors in service can be fatal to a claim – courts have little sympathy for parties (or their lawyers) who get service wrong, especially if left to the last minute. This article offers a high-level overview of CPR Part 6 for domestic service (service within England and Wales only), covering the rule structure, permitted methods and addresses for service, deemed service timing, special cases, common pitfalls (with recent case examples), and upcoming reforms. It is geared toward legal professionals and informed clients, providing scenario-based guidance on navigating service requirements.
Structure and Scope of CPR Part 6
Scope of Part 6: CPR Part 6 sets out the rules for serving documents in civil proceedings. Part 6 is divided into sections, distinguishing service within the jurisdiction (Section II) from service outside the jurisdiction (Section IV). This article addresses domestic service within England and Wales only. (Service outside the jurisdiction involves additional rules and is outside our scope.)
Key Definitions:
CPR 6.2 provides important definitions used in the service rules. For example, a “business day” is any day except Saturday, Sunday, or a bank holiday (important for calculating deadlines). The term “claim” is defined to include any claim form, petition, or application to commence proceedings, but notably does not include particulars of claim. This distinction can affect the timing of service – for instance, serving a claim form and serving particulars of claim are treated separately under the rules (with potentially different deemed service dates if served at different times). Another key point is that each party to litigation must provide an address for service of documents once proceedings are underway (CPR 6.23). Under current rules, that address for service must be a physical postal address in the UK. (A recent High Court decision confirmed that an email address alone is not sufficient as an “address for service” under CPR 6.23 – a point likely to be revisited by rule-makers, as discussed later.)
Why Service Rules Matter:
The service rules exist to ensure that documents (especially the claim form that starts proceedings) actually come to the attention of the party being served. If service is ineffective, a court may have no jurisdiction over the defendant. Failure to serve properly can lead to a claim being struck out or a judgment being set aside. For claimants, getting service right is critical to avoid losing the claim (and potentially the limitation window) due to a technicality. For defendants, understanding service rules is important to know when the clock starts on their time to respond. In practice, courts expect strict compliance: even litigants in person get no special indulgence. In Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court held that emailing a claim form without the defendant’s prior consent was not valid service and declined to retrospectively validate it – even though the defendant’s solicitors had actual notice. This “bright line” approach underscores that the CPR service rules must be observed to the letter.
Structure of Part 6:
For service within the jurisdiction, the key provisions include: CPR 6.3 (permitted methods of service), CPR 6.5 (what constitutes personal service), CPR 6.7–6.9 (specifying where to serve depending on circumstances), CPR 6.14 (when a served claim form is deemed served), CPR 6.26 (when other documents are deemed served), and CPR 6.15–6.16 (court’s powers for alternative service or dispensing with service). These are supplemented by Practice Direction 6A which provides more detail (for example, conditions for electronic service and examples of calculating deemed service dates). There are also special rules for certain parties (e.g. CPR 6.10 for serving the Crown, CPR 6.25 for children and protected parties), but those are beyond our scope here. In essence, CPR Part 6 provides a roadmap: who must be served, where and how they can be served, and when service is legally effective.
Permitted Methods of Service (Within Jurisdiction)
CPR 6.3 sets out the permitted methods for serving a claim form within England and Wales (and by extension, these methods generally apply to serving other documents as well). The main authorized methods are :
• Personal Service – delivering the document by hand directly to the person to be served (special rules apply for serving companies or partnerships – see below). Personal service is mandatory in a few situations (if required by a court order or specific rule) but usually it’s optional.
• First-class post or equivalent – sending by first class mail, Document Exchange (DX), or another service that provides for next-business-day delivery. (In practice, first-class post is common; DX is used when both firms subscribe to it.)
• Leaving the document at a specified place – for example, leaving it at the defendant’s address for service (which could be their residence or a business address, as determined by CPR 6.7–6.9). This method is essentially hand-delivery but not directly to the person (e.g. dropping it through a letterbox or at a reception).
• Fax or other electronic means – notably email, in accordance with the strict provisions of Practice Direction 6A. Importantly, a party may only serve by fax or email if the party to be served (or their solicitor) has indicated in writing that they accept service by that method and has provided a suitable fax number or email address. Simply having corresponded by email is not enough – there must be explicit consent to email service (for example, a solicitor’s letterhead stating an email address for service, or an agreement in correspondence). If these conditions are not met, service by email/fax is invalid. (We will see the consequences in cases like Barton and Chehaib later.) Note that as of April 2023, the rules were updated to allow multiple email addresses to be given for service – if multiple addresses are provided, sending the document to any two of those addresses is sufficient for valid service. This change clarified a previous ambiguity in PD 6A that had caused conflicting case law.
• Any method authorized by the court – often called alternative service under CPR 6.15. A claimant can apply for an order permitting a different method (e.g. WhatsApp, Facebook message, or service on a third party) if standard methods are impracticable. The court will require evidence of why an alternative method is necessary and that it is likely to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention. (Alternative service is a safety net, but it requires a court order – it’s not something a party can do unilaterally, except at their own risk followed by a retrospective application under CPR 6.15(2).)
These methods apply to claim forms. Other documents in the proceedings (like particulars of claim, defence, witness statements, etc.) generally can be served by the same methods (once a party has provided an address for service). One practical difference is that after proceedings have started, if a party is legally represented, documents are usually served on the solicitor’s address. Indeed, once a solicitor is on the record, CPR 6.7 mandates serving the solicitor (at their business address) rather than the party directly.
Electronic Service Nuances:
With the rise of electronic communication, service by email is increasingly common but still tightly regulated. CPR 6.3 and PD 6A require consent as noted. In Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS FT [2024] EWHC 2 (KB), the claimant’s solicitors attempted service by email on the last day, but one defendant had explicitly stated that service by email was not accepted (post only). Because no proper consent was in place, service on that defendant was invalid – a harsh outcome given the documents did reach the defendant, but the rules were not followed. The court refused to salvage the situation (denying relief under CPR 3.9, 3.10 or 6.15), demonstrating the rigidity of the consent requirement. This is a cautionary tale: always obtain express written permission before serving by email or fax, or use a different permitted method.
Who Serves the Documents:
It’s worth noting who effects service. CPR 6.4 provides that the court will serve the claim form in some cases, but in practice claimants often choose to serve the claim form themselves (or via a process server). If the court is to serve, it decides the method (usually first-class post by default). For other documents, the serving party (usually a solicitor) takes responsibility. In any event, prudent practice is to prepare a certificate of service (CPR 6.17/6.19) or at least keep proof of service (like postal receipts or email delivery confirmations) to demonstrate when and how service was done.
Addresses for Service and Service on Particular Parties
Address for Service – Claim Form: When issuing a claim, the claimant must include in the claim form an address within the jurisdiction where the defendant can be served (usually the defendant’s residence or business address). If the defendant has provided a specific service address or has a solicitor acting, that must be used instead. CPR 6.7(1) states that if a defendant’s solicitor has notified the claimant in writing that they are instructed to accept service at a given address, the claim form must be served on that solicitor at that address. Likewise, if the defendant themselves, before being served, gave the claimant an address for service (within UK) – for example in pre-action correspondence – then service should be at that address (CPR 6.8). In other words, the hierarchy is: use the address the defendant (or their lawyer) has specifically provided for service, if one has been provided.
If no specific address was given, and personal service is not being done, CPR 6.9 provides default rules for where the claim form should be served, based on the nature of the defendant. In summary:
• Individuals (natural persons): Serve at their usual or last known residence. (If the individual is sued in the name of a business – e.g. “T/A [Trading Name]” – you can also serve at the business’s address.)
• Individuals sued in a business capacity: If suing someone as a sole trader or as a partner in a firm (using the business name), you may serve at the person’s usual/last residence or their principal or last known place of business. (For example, if A is sued as “A, trading as ABC Plumbing”, service could be at A’s home or at the ABC Plumbing office.)
• Partnerships (sued in the firm name): Serve at the partnership’s principal office or last known place of business. One can also address the claim form to the partnership name and leave it with a partner or person in control of the business at that address. (Notably, serving a partnership effectively means serving each partner – a partnership isn’t a separate legal person in general civil litigation. Case law confirms that an action against a firm is an action against its members, so each partner’s situation must be considered in choosing a valid address.)
• Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs): CPR 6.3(3) and 6.20(3) allow LLPs to be served like companies – at their registered office or by any method permitted under the Companies Act 2006. So an LLP can be served at its registered office (by post or otherwise) or possibly at a business address with real connection to the claim (similar to a company).
• Companies (registered in England & Wales): A company may be served by any of the CPR methods or as allowed by Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The Companies Act (section 1139) provides that a document may be served on a company by sending it to its registered office. In practice, the common approach is to serve companies by posting or delivering the claim form to the company’s registered office address (or occasionally a principal place of business). CPR 6.9(2) echoes that service on a company can be at its principal office or any place of business that has a real connection to the claim , but using the registered office is safest, as it is essentially always a valid place to serve under statute.
Recent update: Effective 4 March 2024, the law tightened requirements for companies to maintain an “appropriate” registered office address where documents can reliably be delivered. Under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, all companies must have a registered office where documents will come to the attention of someone acting for the company and deliveries can be acknowledged. If a company’s registered office is found to be ineffective (e.g. a vacant PO Box), Companies House can change it to a default address and even strike off the company if not remedied. This reinforces that serving court papers at the registered office should result in actual notice to the company going forward.
• Other Corporations (incorporated in E&W but not under Companies Act): e.g. statutory corporations, local authorities, etc. – Serve at the corporation’s principal office, or any place it carries out activities that has a real connection to the claim. (For local government bodies, often their principal office or a specified department address would be used. For government departments or the Crown, CPR 6.10 provides special rules – usually service on the Treasury Solicitor for central government – but those are special cases beyond our focus.)
Obligation to Update Address: Importantly, if a claimant knows or has reason to believe that the last known address is outdated (for instance, the individual moved), the rules oblige the claimant to take reasonable steps to find the current address before serving. If a new address is ascertained, the claim form must be served there. If no current address can be found despite due efforts, the claimant should consider alternative service methods or places (and may need to apply to court under CPR 6.15). Only if no alternative can be identified may the claimant then serve at the last known address as a last resort. Failing to take these steps can be disastrous – serving blindly to an old address when you could have found the new one might lead the court to declare the service invalid. In one case, Chelfat v Corbett [2020] EWHC 3763 (QB), a claimant (acting in person) served a doctor at her workplace address, even though the claim was against her personally (not “trading” or under the business name of the surgery). The court, following an earlier Court of Appeal precedent (Murrills), held this was not valid service – the doctor should have been served at her residence, and serving her at work did not meet any permitted rule for an individual. The claim was struck out for improper service. This illustrates that choosing the wrong address can nullify service, even if the defendant actually sees the documents.
Personal Service: Personal service means physically handing over the document to the defendant (or an appropriate person on their behalf). CPR 6.5(3) explains what counts as personal service in different contexts :
• On an individual – personal service is achieved by leaving the document with that individual (literally handing it to them or putting it down in their presence and explaining what it is). The person doesn’t have to accept it or read it, but you must make sure it’s left with them.
• On a company or corporation – by leaving it with a person holding a senior position in the company. PD 6A defines “senior position” to include positions like a director, chief executive, company secretary, or other officer of the company. In practice, this often means handing the document to a director or perhaps a manager at the company’s office. Simply leaving it at reception with a junior employee might not qualify, unless that person has suitable authority. (When serving a company, many prefer the certainty of postal service to the registered office, but personal service can be used especially if time is short and you can locate a company officer.)
• On a partnership sued in the firm name – by leaving it with a partner or a person who has control or management of the business at the firm’s principal place of business. For example, handing it to a partner at the office, or the office manager. This counts as personal service on the partnership.
Personal service is often used for urgent documents or when there’s a risk the defendant might try to avoid service. There’s an element of drama to personal service (think of a process server saying “You’ve been served”), but legally it’s just one method and not always required. Some proceedings (certain committal applications, etc.) mandate personal service, but for most claim forms it’s optional unless no good address is known.
Service on a Defendant’s Solicitor: If a defendant’s solicitor has agreed to accept service, CPR 6.7 (as mentioned) requires serving the solicitor at the address they provided. This includes email if they consented (often, law firm correspondence will say something like “Service by email to [address] is accepted”). Once proceedings are underway, all subsequent documents typically must be served on the solicitor’s address (CPR 6.23) – usually this will be managed by email or document exchange between the lawyers, per the standard conventions.
Special Cases Not Covered: It should be noted that this overview does not cover service on certain special categories: e.g., the Crown (government departments) which has specific rules (CPR 6.10), or service on children or protected parties which also has special provisions (CPR 6.13, 6.25). Those scenarios require additional considerations (like serving a litigation friend). Here we focus on the typical cases of individuals and business entities in civil litigation.
Time Limits and Deemed Service
Time Limit to Serve a Claim Form:
After a claim form is issued by the court, the claimant has a strict deadline to serve it. Under CPR 7.5, a claim form issued for service within the jurisdiction must be served within 4 months of the date of issue (or 6 months if to be served outside the jurisdiction). Failing to serve in time means the claim form expires and the claim can no longer proceed (unless the court grants an extension). Extensions under CPR 7.6 are not easy to get – the claimant must apply before the 4 months is up, and show good reason (e.g. the defendant is evading service or could not be served despite diligent effort).
If the deadline is missed without an extension, the claimant’s only recourse is often to start over (if limitation hasn’t expired) or otherwise the claim is lost. This harsh rule is why claimants are advised not to wait until the last minute. Many cautionary tales in the case law involve claim forms served at the eleventh hour and something going awry. For example, in ETM Contractors Ltd v Bristol City Council [2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin), a claimant who left service (and even issue) to the last moment, then sought relief, was refused – courts remind us that waiting too long is a peril of the claimant’s own making. The safest practice is to serve well within the validity period or seek an extension in advance if needed.
Deemed Service:
CPR Part 6 provides rules for when service is deemed to take place, regardless of when the document is actually received. These deeming provisions are crucial for calculating deadlines (like the 14-day period to acknowledge service or 28 days to file a defence).
• Claim Forms: CPR 6.14 states that a claim form served within the UK “is deemed to be served on the second business day after completion of the relevant step under rule 7.5(1)”. In plain terms, no matter which method you use, if you have taken the required step to serve (posting it, emailing it, handing it over, etc.), you treat the claim form as served two working days later. For example, if you personally served a claim form on Monday, or posted it on Monday, it is deemed served on Wednesday (assuming no bank holidays). This rule introduces a slight fiction – the defendant might have the papers in hand earlier, but legally the clock starts on the second business day. Note: if the calculated day is a non-business day, it rolls to the next business day, but since it says “second business day” explicitly, it effectively ensures the deemed date is always a business day.
• Other Documents: CPR 6.26 contains a table of deemed service timings for documents other than a claim form. The deemed date depends on the method of service, as follows:
◦ Post or DX: deemed served on the second business day after posting (or collection by the DX) – provided that day is a business day; if the second day is a weekend or holiday, then the next business day.
◦ Delivery to a permitted address (leaving it at an address): deemed served on the same business day if delivered before 4:30pm, or the next business day if after 4:30pm.
◦ Fax: deemed served on the same business day if the transmission completes before 4:30pm; otherwise next business day.
◦ Email or other electronic transmission: same rule as fax – if sent before 4:30pm on a business day, deemed that day; if after 4:30pm, deemed next business day.
◦ Personal service: if done before 4:30pm on a business day, deemed served that day; if after 4:30pm, deemed the next business day.
These times are summarized in PD 6A with examples. The 4:30pm cut-off is a long-standing rule to distinguish “in-office” hours – service late in the evening counts as next day.
Why separate rules for claim forms? Notably, the claim form has a fixed deemed date (second business day) that does not vary by method, whereas other documents have potentially earlier deemed dates if served personally or by email before 4:30pm. This can lead to quirks. For example, if a claim form and particulars of claim are served together by hand at 3pm on Monday, the particulars (being “a document other than a claim form”) are deemed served Monday, but the claim form is deemed served Wednesday. In practice, this usually doesn’t cause issues, but it could affect the timeline for a defendant’s response or the date when interest on a judgment might run.
The key point is to be aware that deemed service is a legal date that may differ from actual receipt. Generally, a defendant’s time to respond (acknowledgment of service or defence) runs from the deemed service date, not the date they physically got the document. There have been cases where defendants tried to exploit or plaintiffs tried to avoid the deemed rules – for instance, in Joyce v West Bus Coach Services Ltd [2012] EWHC 404 (QB) it was held that the timeline for a Part 36 offer depended on deemed service, not when the list of documents was actually received. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal in Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland [2019] pondered whether in some situations actual notice could be considered – but as it stands, the rules on deemed service generally prevail to ensure certainty.
Practical Tip:
When calculating deadlines (for example, 14 days to acknowledge service of a claim form), always use the deemed service date as the starting point. Also be cautious around weekends and holidays – e.g., a document emailed at 5pm on Friday is deemed served on Monday (assuming Monday is a business day). If in doubt, err on the side of assuming the later deemed date for your own actions (claimants should assume service might be deemed later than actual, and defendants should calculate their deadlines from the deemed date even if they got it earlier).
Proof of Service:
Although not a rule about timing, it’s worth noting CPR 6.17 and 6.19 allow/require a Certificate of Service in certain cases. Ensuring you have evidence of when and how you served will be crucial if service is challenged or if you need to prove it for default judgment. The certificate will state the method and date of service, which the court can then compare to the deemed rules (CPR 6.17(2), PD 6A). For example, if you served by first-class post on 1st May, your certificate would say “posted on 1 May 2025”, and thus deemed served 3 May 2025 (if those were business days) per CPR 6.26.
Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Despite clear rules, mistakes in service happen all too often, spawning much case law. Here are some common pitfalls with advice on avoiding them:
Waiting until the last moment:
Procrastinating on service is a recipe for disaster. If you serve on the final day of the 4-month period and something goes wrong (wrong address, consent not obtained, etc.), you have no margin for error. Chehaib [2024] is a prime example – the solicitors left service of the claim form to the last day, attempted an improper method (email without consent), and lost their claim against one defendant entirely. Avoidance: Serve early. If you cannot, consider applying for an extension before time expires, or at least line up a backup method. Always double-check the chosen method’s requirements ahead of time (e.g. ensure an email address is agreed in writing).
Serving at an incorrect or old address:
Using the wrong address can nullify service. For individuals, a frequent error is serving at a work address when the rules required residential service (as in Chelfat 2020, noted above, and earlier cases). For companies, serving at a trading address that is not the registered office or principal place can be risky if it’s not truly a place where the company carries on activities related to the claim.
And for partnerships, serving the “firm” at an address after the firm has dissolved is a trap – e.g. in Goodfellow v Warren Boyes & Archer (A Firm) [2024] EWHC 2015 (KB), the claimant sent the claim form to an office of a successor firm (which had taken over some business of the original partnership) rather than to a partner of the dissolved partnership. The court held service was ineffective and refused to order alternative service; the claimant should have served one of the former partners directly.
Avoidance: Follow CPR 6.7–6.9 to the letter when choosing the address. If you know the defendant moved, don’t serve the old address without diligent efforts to find a new one (and document those efforts). For companies, use the registered office whenever possible – it’s easy to verify via Companies House.
For partnerships or trading names, serve the individuals behind them if the entity no longer exists. When in doubt, you can seek an order for alternative service (for example, if you only have an email or social media contact for a person who moved abroad, etc., though that enters service-outside-jurisdiction territory).
Lack of consent for email/fax:
We’ve stressed this, but it’s worth repeating – assuming you can serve by email because “that’s how we’ve been communicating” is dangerous. Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] is the starkest warning: Mr. Barton (a litigant in person) used email without consent and his claim was time-barred as a result. The Supreme Court said the rules apply to everyone and saw no “good reason” to validate that service under CPR 6.15(2). Avoidance: Get it in writing that the other side accepts service by email (an email from them stating “we accept service at this email address” suffices, or a reference in their letterhead explicitly allowing it ). If not, use physical methods. If you mistakenly serve by email without consent, act immediately – perhaps serve again properly within time if possible, or apply under CPR 6.15(2) for retrospective validation, though success is not guaranteed. (CPR 3.10, the “general power to rectify procedural errors,” cannot be relied on to save an invalid service in most cases ; the courts view a complete failure to comply with service rules as outside the scope of a mere procedural slip.)
Serving the wrong person or entity:
Ensure the named defendant corresponds to who you serve. If you sue a company, serve the company (not some other affiliate). If you sue “John Doe t/a ABC Cleaning,” serving ABC Cleaning Ltd. (a separate company) is wrong – you needed to serve John Doe at his address or business. Misnomers can sometimes be amended, but serving the wrong legal entity is a nullity. Always double-check the defendant’s exact name and status and follow the appropriate rule.
Assuming actual notice cures defects:
It is a natural but incorrect assumption that if the defendant actually received the documents and knew about the proceedings, that should be enough. The CPR’s stance is formal: actual knowledge does not equal valid service (with some narrow exceptions). As Lord Sumption noted in Barton, to relax the rules whenever a defendant got the paperwork would undermine the certainty of the rules. However, courts do have discretion in extreme cases under CPR 6.15 (alternative service) to validate a step that almost complied, but only if there’s good reason. One example: if a claimant mistakenly uses a slightly wrong address but the documents still reached the defendant and no prejudice is caused, a court might retrospectively validate that service – but such mercy is the exception, not the rule. Avoidance: Don’t rely on a court saving you. Treat proper service as your responsibility to get right, not something you can sort out later.
Failures with service of subsequent documents:
Even after the claim form, mistakes occur with serving other documents (like particulars of claim or applications). A common pitfall is missing the deadline to serve particulars of claim (if not included in the claim form). CPR 7.4 requires particulars of claim within 14 days after service of the claim form. If you miss that, the claim can be struck out (unless you obtain relief). In Bangs v FM Conway Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1461, the Court of Appeal overturned a lenient extension for serving particulars, showing a tough stance on breaches of timetable. Avoidance: diarize all post-claim form service deadlines (AoS, defence, etc.) and follow through. If serving by post, remember it’s deemed 2 business days later – so, for example, if you must serve particulars by 1st June and you post them on 1st June, they are deemed served on 3rd June, which is late. In that scenario, you actually needed to post by 30th May or use a method that effected service by 1st June. Always count in deemed service when timing things to avoid an inadvertent miss.
Not using available safety nets:
There are provisions to help when service is problematic – CPR 6.15 (order for alternative service or validating non-standard service) and CPR 6.16 (dispensing with service in exceptional cases). If you anticipate a problem (e.g. you cannot find the defendant despite diligent search, or the deadline is about to expire and the defendant is evading), use these tools proactively. Apply to court for alternative service (perhaps via Facebook or an email without consent) before your time runs out, rather than hoping to argue it later. Also, CPR 7.6 allows extending the claim form validity in certain cases – make that application if needed. Avoidance: The common theme is to be proactive. The rules do allow flexibility but only if you seek it properly; courts rarely indulge a claimant who simply ignores the rules and later asks for a mulligan.
In summary, the best practice is meticulous compliance: serve the right person, at the right address, in an approved manner, and within time. Double-check the CPR and PD6A requirements each time. From a defendant’s perspective, these pitfalls on the claimant’s side can be opportunities – if you suspect you weren’t properly served, you might have jurisdictional grounds to contest the claim or set aside default judgment. But that’s another story; here we assume the goal is to effect service correctly.
Recent Case Law on Service
The courts in recent years have frequently dealt with disputes about service. Some notable recent cases illustrate the principles discussed:
Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2 (KB):
This High Court decision (Master Stevens) is a cautionary tale on service by email. The claimant’s solicitors, on the last day of validity, emailed the claim form to the defendants. Crucially, one defendant had expressly stated that email was not an accepted method. The court held service on that defendant was invalid (no consent to email), and it refused relief under CPR 3.9, 3.10 or 6.15 to validate or forgive the misstep. The Master emphasized that the CPR service rules are “bright line” rules requiring strict observance. She also remarked that the framework for electronic service is outdated and “ripe for review”. This case highlights both the strict enforcement of current rules and the recognition that reforms (especially regarding email service) are needed – a point the rule committee is addressing (see “Reforms” below).
Goodfellow v Warren Boyes & Archer (A Firm) [2024] EWHC 2015 (KB):
A case dealing with service on a dissolved partnership. The claimants sued a law firm (a partnership that had ceased trading years earlier). They attempted to serve the firm by sending the claim form to an address associated with a successor firm (which had taken over some of the dissolved firm’s business). None of the former partners of the dissolved firm were at that address. Master Thornett held this was not valid service on the partnership or any partner. The partnership, being dissolved, had no current place of business, and the claimants did not serve any individual partner. The court also refused to order alternative service after the fact, since the claimants had no good reason for not serving correctly in the first place. The result: the claim against the partnership failed for want of service. This case underlines the importance of understanding whom you are really suing. If it’s a partnership that no longer exists, you likely need to serve the former partners (at their addresses) or get a court order for an alternative method. Sending documents to a random office that had tangential connection was insufficient.
Ellison Road Ltd v Mian (t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors) [2023] EWHC 375 (Ch):
This case provided clarity on serving someone who is sued in their own name “trading as” a business name. Mr. Mian was a solicitor who had once practiced under a firm name (as a sole practitioner) but had since joined another firm. The claimant sued him for negligence, naming him as “Khurram Mian t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors”. The claimant served the claim form at Mian’s new workplace (the firm he had joined). Mian argued the claim was against him personally, so it should have been served at his residence. The court disagreed: since the claim form named him “trading as” a business, CPR 6.9(2) applied – he was being sued in the name of his business, meaning service at his principal place of business was permissible. The claimant knew Mian had ceased his old practice, and reasonably served him at his current business address (his new firm), which was good service. This decision clarified that using “t/a [business]” in the defendant’s name brings the service options for business defendants into play, even if the business has closed – you then serve at the new place of business if they have one. It’s a useful precedent for cases where individuals switch trading styles or firms.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12:
While a few years older, no discussion of service pitfalls is complete without Barton. Mr. Barton (a litigant in person) attempted to serve a claim form by email on the defendant’s solicitors without their consent. The email arrived within the limitation period, but because it was not valid service, by the time Barton realized and tried other means, it was too late – the claim was time-barred. The Supreme Court, by 3-2 majority, refused to exercise CPR 6.15 to validate the email service. They held there was no good reason to do so; being a litigant in person was not an excuse, and the defendant’s solicitors had no obligation to save the claimant from his mistake. This case is often cited to reinforce that non-compliance with service rules is taken seriously, even at the highest level, and that the court’s discretion to rescue a claimant is limited.
Chedington Court Estate Ltd v Architectural Solutions Ltd [2022] EWHC 1162 (Ch):
A noteworthy High Court decision (Sir Anthony Mann) concerning the address for service under CPR 6.23. The question was whether an email address could satisfy the requirement for an address for service. The court held it could not – CPR 6.23 requires a physical address in the jurisdiction. This case is frequently mentioned in discussions about modernizing service rules. It essentially says: under current rules, you can’t just put “email: X@Y.com” as your address for service; you need bricks-and-mortar. However, the judge hinted this was a matter for the Rules Committee to reconsider. And indeed, that reconsideration is underway (see below).
These cases (and many others) show that service issues continue to crop up, often litigated to high levels. They remind practitioners that one must meticulously follow CPR Part 6. Conversely, for defendants, a keen eye on whether the claimant complied can yield a technical victory if they did not.
Outlook and Reforms of the Service Rules
Evolving Electronic Service:
Recognising the need to modernise, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has been actively reviewing the rules on electronic service. As of early 2025, a Service Sub-Committee of the CPRC has been considering rule changes to make e-service more practical. One key proposal is to make service by email effectively the default method for parties who are legally represented. In other words, if a solicitor is on record for a party, the rules might presume that service by email is acceptable (doing away with the need for explicit consent each time). This would reflect the reality that most lawyers already communicate by email and reduce the need for paper. The CPRC minutes from Feb/March 2025 indicate draft amendments being prepared for public consultation, including defining what counts as a solicitor’s “representation” (especially pre-action, to know when that default kicks in), how to ascertain a proper email address if one isn’t volunteered, and dealing with technical issues around e-service. It’s anticipated that a pilot or phased implementation will follow, given the importance of getting it right.
In tandem with that, the CPRC has likely addressed the address for service issue. As noted in Chedington, currently a party must give a physical address for service. There is pressure to allow an email address as sufficient. A possible reform could be to permit an email-only address for service in certain circumstances (particularly if the party is willing to accept that). This might tie into the broader change of making email a primary method.
Procedural Reforms and Clarifications:
Recent amendments have already been made to clarify certain points – for example, the April 2023 change to PD 6A explicitly allowing multiple email addresses to be nominated. This overruled an earlier case (Tax Returned Ltd v HMRC [2022]) that caused concern by suggesting only one email address could be given. Now, practitioners can safely list, say, two solicitors’ emails on filings for service, knowing service to either (or both) will be effective. This kind of tweak shows the rules adapting to practical needs.
Another area of reform (though more on the substance of service than form) is ensuring service addresses are valid – as mentioned, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 requiring companies to maintain an “appropriate” registered office. This isn’t a CPR rule change, but it bolsters the reliability of serving companies by post. Additionally, that Act mandates companies to provide an email address to Companies House , which could in the future facilitate electronic service or at least communication (presently, service via Companies House email is not a method, but one could envision a system where a claimant could obtain a company’s official email for service).
We should also keep an eye on pilot schemes like the Online Court and how they handle service. In some online claim systems, service can be effected through the online portal or by the court electronically. As those expand, the traditional Part 6 may see parallel processes.
Potential Consequences of Reforms: If email becomes a default method for represented parties, one likely change is that CPR 6.23 (address for service) will allow an email address to be the sole address or require parties to routinely provide an email. The CPRC is also looking at the problem of identifying the correct email for a party who hasn’t given one – possibly empowering the court to order disclosure of an email or deeming service to a last-known email similar to the last-known residence rule. All of this is in flux as of 2025.
For now, practitioners should stay informed of any CPR updates. The CPRC meeting minutes from February and March 2025 (which are publicly available) indicate that formal proposals on electronic service are imminent. It’s conceivable that by late 2025 or 2026, we will have new rules in Part 6. One suggestion on the table is that if a solicitor is instructed, service by email to that solicitor’s publicly available email will be valid unless they opt-out (a reversal of the current opt-in regime).
Concluding Thoughts:
Service under CPR Part 6 may seem technical, but it is a cornerstone of civil procedure. Getting it wrong can derail an otherwise meritorious case. The safest approach is to methodically follow the rules and use multiple methods if allowed (for instance, if a solicitor consents to email, one might still send a back-up hard copy by post – belt and braces). Keep proof of everything, calculate deadlines from deemed service, and do not hesitate to use the court’s assistance (applications for alternative service or extensions) when needed. With upcoming reforms, we expect the process to become more streamlined (particularly embracing electronic communications), but until those are in force, the existing rules must be respected. As one legal commentator put it, service rules might not win cases, but they sure can lose them. By understanding CPR Part 6’s structure, methods, and potential traps – and staying abreast of new developments – legal professionals can ensure that proceedings start on solid footing and avoid costly satellite litigation over service.
Facing litigation or considering court action? Carruthers Law offers expert litigation services with precise strategic guidance to safeguard your interests. Our specialist solicitors handle your disputes effectively, ensuring the best outcomes. Contact us today for confidential, professional advice—call 0151 541 2040 or email us directly.