Planetree Nominees Ltd & Anor v Howard Kennedy LLP

Service of a claim against a dissolved partnership requires careful identification of the persons or address permitted by the Civil Procedure Rules. Where the partnership has ceased business, a claimant must take reasonable steps to identify the current addresses of the relevant partners. A request for a partnership membership statement under Practice Direction 7A is required in the circumstances considered.

Actual knowledge of the claim does not by itself justify retrospective validation under CPR 6.15(2). The court must find a good reason, with particular attention to why valid service was not achieved within the claim form’s period of validity. The court has no free-standing discretion to cure defective service.

The claimants brought a negligence claim against Howard Kennedy, a partnership which had ceased trading in 2011 and whose practice had transferred to Howard Kennedy LLP. The claim form was issued on 18 March 2016 and was sent nearly four months later to the LLP’s London Bridge address, rather than to the individual partners or an address shown to be the partnership’s current place of business.

The defendant sought a declaration that service was invalid. The claimants sought a declaration that service was valid or, alternatively, retrospective validation under CPR 6.15(2). The central issues were whether the claim form had been validly served and, if not, whether there was a good reason to validate the steps taken.

1. Service invalid. The claim form had not been served in accordance with the CPR. A partnership has no legal personality, and a claim against a partnership in its business name is in substance a claim against the relevant individuals. Under CPR 6.9(2), service required the usual or last known residence of the individual or the principal or last known place of business of the partnership.
2. There was substantial doubt whether a dissolved partnership could have a current place of business. In any event, the evidence did not establish that the LLP’s London Bridge address was Howard Kennedy’s current place of business. The standstill agreement did not alter the CPR service regime, and clause 10.4 expressly excluded service of proceedings from its notice provisions.
3. Under CPR 6.9(3), the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the current address. Where a partnership has ceased business and that fact is known, a request under Practice Direction 7A, paragraphs 5A and 5B, for a partnership membership statement is required. The claimants had made no such request before the expiry of the claim form.
4. Retrospective validation under CPR 6.15(2) requires a good reason. The principles summarised in Abela v Baadarni [2013] UKSC 44 and Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2016] CP REP 29 emphasise that bringing the claim form to the defendant’s attention is important but insufficient. The court must also consider why valid service was not achieved within the period of validity, together with the conduct of both parties.
5. The claimants gave no explanation for the nearly four-month delay after issue, despite knowing that RPC had not agreed to accept service. That absence of explanation was fatal. The defendant’s application for a declaration that service had not taken place was granted, and the claimants’ application was dismissed.