Delivery of the Claim Form to the correct mailbox in an apartment block was required

IVANCHEV V VELLI [2020] EWHC 1917 (QB) 2020

Mr Stansilav Ivanchev (C) failed to obtain judgment in default against Mr Velli (D) on the basis that D had not acknowledged service of the claim form. C had clipped D's car, and a series of heated email exchanges between the two followed. C subsequently issued proceedings for libel, harassment, misuse of private information and breach of data protection rights. 

C's lawyer emailed D twice for confirmation that he was either; (1) happy to accept service by email, or (2) to provide an address at which legal documents could be served. No address was provided by D itself, but a tracing agent provided a potential address, post code and flat number. A process server then attended D's building, but was unable to deliver the claim form to the flat as he was told that D no longer lived there. He allowed a security guard to post the documents into a mailbox, but, crucially, could not see which one was used, or which flat it belonged to. 

D maintained that he had not been served with a claim form, did not recognise any of the names used by C to refer to him, and had never lived at flat 1607 whose mailbox had been used. 

KEY LEGAL POINTS

• D's "usual or last known residence", for the purpose of service of a claim form, could not be a property at which D have never lived. D must have lived there at some time for the then CPR 6.5(6) to be satisfied.
• What constitutes good service for a multi-occupancy building will turn on the facts of the case. In this instance, it was material that:
  • (a) this was a large building comprising of autonomous residential units, each with its own mailbox and postal address;
  • (b) the documents in question were not addressed correctly, as to both D's name and his address; and
  • (c) C had not taken the "reasonable steps" required by CPR 6.9(3) to ascertain where D was living. Further emails should have been sent to D, failing which, an application for alternative service should have been made pursuant to CPR 6.15. 

CLAIM FORM LEFT AT THE RECEPTION DESK OF A MULTI-OCCUPANCY OFFICE WAS VALID SERVICE.

BEC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V MELT HYTHE LIMITED [2020] EWHC 970 (TCC)

Claimant building contractor, BEC Construction (C) validly served the claim form on property developer Melt Hyde Ltd (D) by delivering it to D's registered office, even though a separate business was operating from the premises. Consequently, D failed to have judgment in default set aside. 

C's representative (B) delivered the claim form to the address that C understood to be D's principal place of business. This was the address in the contract between the parties, and was also D's registered address. A dental practice was being run from the same building, with one of its directors also found to be a director of D. 

B delivered the claim form to reception, and gave D's name to the dental practice employee that was on the desk (M). M signed for the documents and they were left in her custody. D failed to file its Acknowledgement of Service in time, arguing that the service of the documents was invalid. D's Application to set aside  C's default judgment failed. 

KEY LEGAL POINTS

• What is required for "delivery" of the documents under CPR r.7.5 (1) can be as little as leaving the documents at the address.
• C went above and beyond what is legally required for good service. It was material that:
  • (a) the receptionist accepted delivery, and this is a normal function of receptionists; and
  • (b) the fact that there was more than one business in the building was a result of the way in which D managed its affairs. The employer of the receptionist was therefore immaterial. 

COMMENTARY

When serving claim forms at multi-occupancy addresses, these decisions highlight that claimants must be particularly careful. The claim form must be served at the specific "usual or last known residence" for the defendant. Delivery to the building itself may in some cases be sufficient, but this will not always be the case. As Ivanchev v Velli shows, where a defendant lives at an address that includes a separate mailbox number, the claim form must be delivered there. However, following BEC Construction Ltd v Melt Hythe Ltd, defendants probably cannot contest valid service on the basis that another business operates from the same premises. The court may disregard this argument, especially if the shared occupancy occurs as a result of the business structure of the defendant itself.