Aston v Tew & Anor [2025] EWCC 20 (01 August 2024)

Aston v Tew & Anor [2025] EWCC 20 (01 August 2024)

There is no implied obligation under CPR 6.9(2) for a claimant to exercise reasonable diligence to check if a defendant still resides at the last known address before serving the claim form. The obligation to make enquiries only arises if the claimant has reason to believe the defendant no longer resides at that address. Service at the last known address is valid if the claimant has no such reason to believe otherwise.

Citation
[2025] EWCC 20
Parties
Claimant: Miss Nakiesha Aston; First Defendant: Mr Ryan Tew; Second Defendant: Alwyn Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Judge's Order Striking Out Claim and Granting Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, CPR 6.9, Reasonable Diligence, Last Known Residence, Road Traffic Accident
Civil Procedure Service of Process CPR 6.9 Reasonable Diligence Last Known Residence Road Traffic Accident

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Nakiesha Aston

Claimant

Mr Ryan Tew

First Defendant

Alwyn Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Judge's Order Striking Out Claim and Granting Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an implied obligation under CPR 6.9(2) for a claimant to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain if a defendant still resides at the last known address before serving the claim form
  2. 2 Whether service at the defendant's last known address is valid where the claimant has no reason to believe the defendant no longer resides there

Ratio Decidendi

There is no implied obligation under CPR 6.9(2) for a claimant to exercise reasonable diligence to check if a defendant still resides at the last known address before serving the claim form. The obligation to make enquiries only arises if the claimant has reason to believe the defendant no longer resides at that address. Service at the last known address is valid if the claimant has no such reason to believe otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • District Judge's order striking out the claim and granting summary judgment to the Second Defendant set aside
  • Service on the First Defendant at the Robin Close address held to be good service