Cranfield & Anor v Bridgegrove Ltd.

Where service is to be effected by the court, CPR 7.6(3)(a) covers every failure by the court to serve in time, including a failure caused by oversight. The court must then exercise its discretion by identifying the real cause of non-service and considering promptness.

Retrospective dispensation from service under CPR 6.9 is exceptional. It must not circumvent the restrictions on extending time, particularly where the claimant has made significant departures from the prescribed method of service. A company may nevertheless be served at its registered office under section 725(1) of the Companies Act 1985, despite an authorisation for service on solicitors under the CPR, unless the parties have made a binding agreement excluding that statutory route. Service at an individual's last known residence is good service under CPR 6.5(6) if its stated conditions are met.

Five appeals concerning service of claim forms were heard together. They raised the construction of CPR 7.6(3)(a), the exceptional retrospective dispensing power in CPR 6.9, service on a company where solicitors had been authorised to accept service, and service on an individual's last known residence.

In Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd and Claussen v Yeates, the issue was whether court non-service permitted an extension of time. In McManus v Sharif, a draft claim form had been sent to the defendant's insurers rather than to the defendant or an authorised solicitor. In Murphy v Staples UK Ltd, the claim form was posted to the company's registered office despite an earlier authorisation for service on its solicitors. In Smith v Hughes, the claim form was sent to the individual defendant's last known residence after he had left it.

1. The appeals were allowed in part. The defendant's appeals in Cranfield and Murphy were dismissed. The claimant's appeal in Claussen was dismissed. The appeals in McManus and Smith were allowed.

2. CPR 7.6(3)(a) was not confined to cases in which the court had attempted, but failed, to serve. A court is "unable to serve" where it has failed to serve in time through oversight. This construction avoided an unjustified gap under which court neglect could deprive a claimant of access to the court. The discretion to extend time remains fact-sensitive. It will usually be exercised where court neglect was the real cause and the claimant applied promptly, but not where the claimant or legal representative was the real cause.

3. Applying that approach, the extension in Cranfield was upheld because the court's neglect caused the failure. In Claussen, however, the claimant's solicitors had delayed providing the court with the confirmation needed for service and had failed to convey urgency. Their conduct, rather than court neglect, was the real cause. The court also refused retrospective dispensation because the copy sent to the defendant's solicitors was expressly not intended as service.

4. CPR 6.9 must not be used to evade CPR 7.6(3). Following the guidance in Anderton v Clwyd County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 933 and Wilkey v BBC [2002] EWCA Civ 1561, retrospective dispensation in these pre-Anderton cases remained exceptional. In McManus, the claimant had sent an unsealed draft, while stating that the sealed form would follow, to insurers without authority to accept service. Those were substantial, not technical, departures from the rules. Dispensation should therefore have been refused.

5. A company may be served either under CPR Part 6 or under section 725(1) of the Companies Act 1985. These are true alternatives. An agreement that solicitors will accept personal service under CPR 6.4(2) does not, without a binding agreement to that effect, exclude service at the registered office. The posting in Murphy was consequently good service. The court added, obiter, that the unusual pre-Anderton circumstances would otherwise have justified dispensation because a copy of the issued form had reached the right solicitors at the right address before expiry.

6. Finally, CPR 6.5(6) is unqualified. Where its conditions are satisfied, sending the claim form to an individual's usual or last known residence is good service, even if the individual no longer lives there or does not receive it. As the address in Smith was undisputedly the defendant's last known residence, the appeal was allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). In a single judgment of the court, the five linked appeals were determined: the appeals in McManus v Sharif and Smith v Hughes were allowed; those in Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd, Claussen v Yeates and Murphy v Staples UK Ltd were dismissed: [2003] EWCA Civ 656.
• County Courts. The appeals came respectively from His Honour Judge Hull QC at Guildford County Court, His Honour Judge Butter QC at Central London County Court, His Honour Judge Hornby at Bow County Court, His Honour Judge Armitage QC at Manchester County Court, and District Judge Duerden at Bury County Court.