ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: THE USE OF A POST OFFICE BOX NUMBER OR ACCOMODATION ADDRESS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: (ALSO – THE PRICE TAG FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON)
In Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC) HHJ Paul Matthews made some observations about the correct address for service when applications are issued. He also noted the issues that can arise when dealing with some litigants in person.
“During the course of this judgment I have referred to many and frequent examples of unacceptable behaviour in the applicant’s conduct of these proceedings. Such behaviour is characteristic of litigants in person who often have no idea what they are doing, but even if they do (and it is evident that the applicant in the these cases is well aware of the rules) they have no training, no sense of responsibility to the system and no professional reputation to lose. Such behaviour creates extra costs and unnecessary work for courts and lawyers alike, and creates delays preventing more deserving litigants from having their disputes resolved sooner by the courts.”
THE CASE
The applicant was seeking pre-action disclosure against a number of potential defendants. Some applications were said to have settled. The judge heard the remaining applications together. He held that a third party was behind each of the applications and refused them. He made a civil restraint order against the applicant and the person he found to be behind the applications.
THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE GIVEN ON THE APPLICATIONS
The applicant’s address, given on the claim forms, were accommodation addresses. The judge had that this did not comply with the rules.
“24. There is one other procedural point which I must mention. Joseph Edwards, counsel for the Ministry of Justice and the Registrar of Companies, referred me to the rules about addresses for service in civil proceedings. In relation to documents other than the claim form, CPR rule 6.23 materially provides:
“(1) A party to proceedings must give an address at which that party may be served with documents relating to those proceedings. The address must include a full postcode or its equivalent in any EEA state (if applicable) unless the court orders otherwise.
(2) Except where any other rule or practice direction makes different provision, a party’s address for service must be –
(a) the business address either within the United Kingdom or any other EEA state of a solicitor acting for the party to be served; or
(b) the business address in any EEA state of a European Lawyer nominated to accept service of documents; or
(c) where there is no solicitor acting for the party or no European Lawyer nominated to accept service of documents –
(i) an address within the United Kingdom at which the party resides or carries on business; or
(ii) an address within any other EEA state at which the party resides or carries on business.
[ … ]”
25. If the applicants in these applications were acting by solicitors or a European lawyer (as defined) they would be obliged to state the “business address” of those solicitors or that European lawyer. Since the applicants in these applications are not acting by solicitors or a European lawyer, they are obliged, under CPR 6.23(c)(i), to state and address at which they reside or carry on business. It is obvious that an accommodation address or post office box number is not an address at which anyone resides or carries on business. Accordingly, said Mr Edwards, all these applications are irregular. He supported this submission by reference to commentary in the White Book, volume 1, para 6.23.1, pages 299 and 300.
26. This reads as follows:
“It should be noted that where a solicitor’s or European lawyer’s address is not given under (2)(a) or (b) the address must be an address within the UK or EEA state at which the party resides or carries on business. The precise wording of this rule is important because on occasions defendants attempt to give a PO box address as an address for service. However, a person cannot ‘reside’ at or ‘carry on business’ at a PO box although such a business might be carried on by using such a PO box address. In the circumstances a PO box would not be a valid address for service under that rule.”
27. I respectfully agree with the reasoning in this comment. The use of a post office box number or accommodation address, where the person concerned neither resides not carries on business, does not comply with the rule. This is yet further unacceptable behaviour by the applicant. Mr Edwards said that the consequence was that the court might strike out the proceedings. There is of course a power in CPR rule 3.4 to strike out a statement of case where there has been a failure to comply with a rule: see rule 3.4(2)(c). But an application notice is not a statement of case: see the definition in CPR rule 2.3(1). On the other hand, the court clearly has general management powers under rule 3.1, including the power to stay the whole or part of any proceedings: see rule 3.1(2)(f). In an appropriate case, that might be a suitable sanction, until a compliant address were provided. But in circumstances where I have decided on other grounds to refuse the applications as totally without merit, it is not necessary to take the matter further, apart from recording this further example of bad litigation practice.”