The High Court of Justice has this week ruled in the case of Ellison Road Ltd v Mian (t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors) & Anor [2023] EWHC 375 (Ch) that a sole practitioner trading in the name of their firm can be served at their last known place of business for the purposes of litigation.

The First Defendant contended that where an individual is sued in their own name, trading as their business name, they are only sued as an individual and so service in compliance with CPR 6.9(2) necessitated service at his usual or last known residence.

The Claimant’s position was that service was affected, alternative service should be allowed or service should be dispensed with because the Defendant lived in an undisclosed address in the United Arab Emirates.

Master Brightwell determined that in this case as the First Defendant was being sued in the name of a business, that service may be effected at his principal or last known place of business, or the address ascertained in accordance with CPR rule 6.9(3). The Judge then determine that the Claimant had effected good service of the Claim Form on the First Defendant.

This is a reassuring verdict for Claimants dealing with evasive and difficult to serve Defendants.