Re P (Service on Parent in a Refuge)

Where a person to be served may be living in a women’s refuge, the court must balance effective service against the confidentiality and safety of the refuge. Under Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 6, the court has a broad discretion to direct an alternative method or place of service where there is good reason. Personal service at the refuge address should be required only in truly exceptional and urgent cases. The alleged perpetrator, or their representative, must never personally serve the resident, and the refuge address must not be disclosed to them or their solicitor, even subject to an undertaking. Courts must also consider participation directions for a person who may be a victim of domestic abuse, and translation where the resident is a migrant woman.

The judgment arose during ongoing private-law children proceedings concerning a 21-month-old child. Both parents had made allegations of domestic abuse, and the mother and child had moved into a London refuge. Orders concerning the child’s whereabouts and attendance at court raised practical and safety concerns because ordinary service or disclosure could compromise the refuge and endanger its residents.

The High Court retained the issue of service and invited submissions from the parties, the Secretary of State for Justice and organisations representing or supporting refuges. The central questions were how service should be effected under the existing rules, what interim arrangements could balance effective service with safety and confidentiality, and whether those arrangements were proportionate.

1. Guidance issued. Under Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 6, the court may direct service by an alternative method or at an alternative place where there is good reason. The rules apply in the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court, and the discretion is broad enough to address refuge cases.
2. In the ordinary case, service should be by an alternative method or at an alternative location. Appropriate possibilities include service at another agreed location, on a legal representative, through a refuge PO Box or office address, by email or other electronic messaging, or through a third party who will promptly pass the documents to the resident. The CEO or director should confirm that material sent to a refuge address will be brought promptly to the resident’s attention.
3. Personal service at the refuge itself is permissible only where the circumstances are truly exceptional and urgent. If ordered, it should be undertaken by a court bailiff or the Tipstaff, preferably using female officers in plain clothes. The alleged perpetrator or their representative must not undertake personal service.
4. The refuge’s residential address must never be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator or their solicitor, even if an undertaking is offered. Formal contact with a refuge and orders seeking information should be directed to its CEO or director. Individual refuge staff should not be named in orders requiring disclosure of confidential information.
5. When determining service arrangements, the court must consider proportionality and the overriding objective under Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 1.1(2). It must also consider participation directions under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 63, Part 3A and PD3AA, treating a refuge resident as a vulnerable party where appropriate. Additional care is required to translate orders for a migrant woman.