BEC Construction Ltd v Melt Hythe Ltd

Service of a claim form at a company’s relevant place is effective where the documents are left at the correct address. Handing them to a receptionist at that address does not convert the service into personal service. The receptionist’s employment by another business operating from the same premises is not, without more, material. Where multiple businesses share an address, a challenge based on an allegedly incorrect internal location requires evidence showing the distinction and identifying the proper place for service. A signature obtained as confirmation of delivery does not alter the method of service recorded in the certificate.

The claimant contractor obtained an adjudicator’s decision in its favour after terminating its contract with the defendant property developer. Proceedings were issued, and the claim form and associated documents were taken to the defendant’s registered office and contractual place of business, Sunnyside. The documents were left at the reception desk of a dental practice operating from the same address and were later passed to the defendant.

The defendant failed to acknowledge service within the abridged period, and judgment in default was entered. It applied to set that judgment aside, contending that service was invalid because the documents had been personally handed to a receptionist of the dental practice, or had been left at the wrong reception. The central issue was whether the documents had been validly left at the relevant place under the CPR.

1. Application dismissed. The judgment in default remained in force.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, service by delivery to or leaving the claim form at the relevant place does not require personal delivery to a person connected with the defendant. The documents may be left at the correct address, including by placing them just inside the premises or leaving them unattended on a counter.
3. The evidence established that the documents were placed on the reception counter rather than handed to the receptionist. In any event, handing them to the receptionist would not have invalidated service. Taking reasonable steps to ensure that documents were not mislaid could not prejudice the claimant where the documents reached the relevant address.
4. The defendant’s registered office and contractual place of business were both Sunnyside. Although a dental practice also operated there, the receptionist’s employer was not material in the circumstances. A possible distinction between separate businesses within one building might matter where the address identified a particular floor or unit, but the defendant provided no evidence showing any such internal distinction or identifying a different proper place for service.
5. The receptionist’s signature on the certificate of service merely confirmed delivery. It did not change the method of service, which was recorded as delivery to a permitted place.
6. The alternative arguments concerning service on solicitors and Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 6.9(3) were not pursued. The application therefore failed.

The judgment describes the procedural history leading to the application. Fraser J ordered service and case management directions on 9 December 2019, and entered judgment in default on 16 December 2019. The present court dismissed the defendant’s application to set that judgment aside.