Ellison Road Limited v Khurram Mian t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors & Anor

For service under CPR rule 6.9, an individual named with a trading name is ordinarily an individual being sued in the name of a business. The claim form may therefore be served at the individual’s principal or last known place of business, subject to the obligation to take reasonable steps where there is reason to believe that the address is no longer current.

Where a practising solicitor’s current business address is published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, reliance on that information may constitute reasonable steps. The claimant need not make every possible further enquiry. If service is nevertheless defective, retrospective validation under CPR rule 6.15 depends on all the circumstances, including reasonable steps, timely awareness of the claim’s contents and prejudice; no factor is decisive.

The claimant brought a professional-negligence claim against the first defendant, a solicitor sued in his own name trading as HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors, and against Moriarty Law Limited. The claim form was delivered to an address at which the Solicitors Regulation Authority identified the first defendant as working for the second defendant.

The first defendant challenged jurisdiction under CPR rule 11(1), arguing that, because he was named individually with a trading name, service was permitted only at his usual or last known residence. He also argued that the claimant had failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain his current address. The claimant applied alternatively for validation or alternative service under CPR rule 6.15, and for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction and an extension of time.

The central issues were whether the first defendant was sued in the name of a business, whether service at the stated business address was valid, and, if not, whether the steps taken should be validated.

1. Construction of the service rules. An individual named with their full name followed by a trading name is being sued in the name of a business for CPR rule 6.9(2). Practice Direction 16 paragraph 2.6 and Practice Direction 7A paragraph 5C are to be read consistently. Where the individual’s full name is known, it must be used with the trading name; where it is unknown, the business name alone may be used. (paras [18]–[25])
2. Relevant business address. For an individual sued in the name of a business, the relevant address is the individual’s principal or last known place of business, not merely the place of business of the trading name. This differs from service on an individual sued in the business name of a partnership, where the rule refers to the partnership’s place of business. (paras [26]–[27])
3. Reasonable steps and valid service. The claimant reasonably relied on the SRA website, which identified the first defendant as working at 20 Old Bailey. The obsolete Companies House address was evidently unreliable. The claimant was not required to make every possible enquiry, including a further enquiry of the defendant’s solicitors. Service at 20 Old Bailey was therefore good service under CPR rule 6.9. (paras [28]–[32])
4. Alternative conclusion. If service had been defective, the court would have validated the steps taken under CPR rule 6.15(2). Applying Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119, the relevant factors included reasonable steps to effect service, whether the defendant or solicitors knew the claim’s contents before expiry, and prejudice. The first two factors outweighed the loss of a limitation defence. (paras [33]–[41])
5. The first defendant’s application was dismissed. The claimant’s alternative application accordingly fell away.