In the recent County Court Appeal case of Jeffrey v Teevan (2025), the court showcased the importance of compliance with service requirements. A party must ensure that they can prove to the court that they have made all reasonable efforts to obtain effective service.

Background

In July 2020, Mr Jeffrey issued a claim against Mr Teevan (as well as the managing agents and an agent for Mr Teevan) for unlawful eviction in June 2020. Ultimately, Mr Teevan became the sole defendant of the claim, as the landlord of Mr Jeffrey.

Mr Teevan failed to respond to the claim. As a result, the court granted an order for judgment with damages to be assessed against Mr Teevan. In December 2021, an order was made for damages in the region of £23,000 plus costs.

Mr Teevan, in July 2023, applied to set aside the judgment and costs certificate (in the region of £45,000), claiming that he had not been served with the claim or any subsequent orders. Mr Teevan stated that the first receipt of anything related to the claim was received at his home address in 2023. This was a letter from Mr Jeffrey’s representatives enclosing a variety of papers.

Mr Jeffrey’s representatives stated that Mr Teevan knew of all claim details and trial dates. The claim was said to have been served at an address where Mr Teevan ‘picked up post’. This address was the property from which Mr Jeffrey had been unlawfully evicted (26 Windmill). The issue was that Mr Teevan did not reside at this property. The judgment and costs certificate were therefore set aside in October 2023.

Appeal

Mr Jeffrey appealed this decision. It was his position that the property where papers were served was Mr Teevans address on the Land Registry.

It was averred that the District Judge had not adequately assessed the court’s discretion as to setting aside the judgment. The discretion to set aside judgment only applied where the claim was not properly served.

However, on the facts, Mr Jeffrey’s solicitors had not followed the service requirements in CPR 6.9. In short, they had not affected service at the last known place of residence, as it was known that Mr Teevan did not live at the property. This engaged CPR 6.9(3), which required the Claimant (Mr Jeffrey) to make reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the Defendant’s (Mr Teevan) current residence. CPR 6.9(4) requires that where the current address cannot be ascertained, a claimant must consider an alternative place or method to effect service (and thereafter make an application to the court for alternative service if an address is found).

Simply looking up Mr Teevan's address on the Land Registry was not sufficient. The Circuit Judge did not consider this to be ‘reasonable steps’. It was found that an alternative place or method of service was not considered or investigated.

The Circuit Judge summarised that the issue before the court was service, not knowledge of the claim. Therefore, as reasonable steps had not been taken, the appeal would fail on this basis.

Interestingly, within the court file, there was an order from July 2020 stating that service at 26 Windmill was to be deemed to be good service. The order was not however, within the appeal bundle and was therefore not addressed in evidence, nor was it mentioned within the first hearing to set the judgment aside. This proved fatal.

The Circuit Judge dismissed the appeal and costs were awarded to Mr Teevan.

It should also be noted that two ‘show cause’ orders were made against Mr Jeffrey’s solicitors – the first from the October 2023 set aside hearing (it is assumed due to CPR 6.9 failings) and the second concerning the appeal as a result of them failing to include and mention the July 2020 order.

Key learning points

• A claimant must ensure that when serving papers, they comply with CPR 6 and can evidence that they have taken all reasonable steps to attempt service, and if needed, that an application is made for service by other means.
• Parties must ensure that copies of all orders and relevant documents are included within Court Bundles, so that the judge and parties have a clear and accurate view of how the case has progressed.

For more information

For further information, please contact me.