This appeal case highlights the importance of complying with court rules.
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are a set of rules that govern the procedure and practice of civil cases in the County and High Courts of England and Wales.
CPR 6 deals with the service of documents and the appeal case of Jeffrey v Teevan [2025] EWCC 24 (09 May 2025) raised issues in relation to service and specifically the operation of rule 6.9.
CPR 6.9 sets out the steps to take in circumstances where the defendant does not give an address at which they may be served. It provides a prescriptive and mandatory table setting out the place of service depending on the nature of the defendant to be served (i.e. whether they are an individual, a business or an LLP).
However, where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in the table at CPR 6.9 is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps (our emphasis added) to ascertain the address of the defendant's current residence or place of business.
In the case of Jeffrey v Teevan, the appellant (who was the tenant and claimant in the claim), alleged that he had been unlawfully evicted from his residential property (the Property). He brought a claim against the respondent (the landlord and defendant in the claim) for unlawful eviction and served the claim form and other documents on the defendant at the Property. The appellant obtained judgment and a default costs certificate against the respondent, both of which were subsequently successfully set aside by the respondent. The appellant appealed and the question for the court was whether the respondent had been validly served.
The appellant's justification for serving the respondent at the Property was that it was the address for the respondent provided for on the title register for the Property held by the Land Registry.
The court held that despite this there had not been good service as the appellant knew the respondent did not reside there. The court went onto say that, in these circumstances, carrying out a search at the Land Registry did not amount to 'reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the respondent's current residence' in accordance with the CPR and as such valid service had not been affected.
The twist in the tale here, however, was that during the appeal it transpired that an order had been made in 2020 which made provision for deemed service on the respondent at the Property. This order had not, however, been bought to the court's attention during the appeal nor was it included in the trial bundle (it only having come to the Judge's attention when reviewing the court file).
On the basis that the 2020 order was not bought to the court's attention, and did not form part of the appellant's grounds of appeal, the court ruled that service of the claim was invalid and upheld the setting aside of the judgment and the cost certificate.
The effect of this was that after almost 5 years of litigation, the appellant was back to the start of his claim, the Judge having made a subsequent directions order allowing the appellant to apply to amend his claim for unlawful eviction and the respondent to defend that claim.
This case is yet another reminder of the importance of strictly complying with the rules set out in the CPR as failure to do so can be costly for the party in default. Whilst they may appear onerous at times, the purpose of the CPR is to ensure that civil justice is fair, efficient and proportionate and as such the courts take compliance seriously.
