Jeffrey v Teevan [2025] EWCC 24 (09 May 2025)

Jeffrey v Teevan [2025] EWCC 24 (09 May 2025)

The claimant failed to comply with CPR 6.9 by not taking reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant's current address and not considering alternative methods of service. Service at 26 Windmill Hill was not valid as the claimant knew the defendant did not reside there. The existence of a deemed service order (22 July 2020) did not justify allowing the appeal, as it was not disclosed to the court below or on appeal, and its late invocation was procedurally improper. The appeal was dismissed, the judgment and default costs certificate remain set aside, and indemnity costs were awarded against the claimant due to conduct out of the norm.

Citation
[2025] EWCC 24
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Alexander Jeffrey; Defendant/respondent: Michael Teevan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Aside Judgment and Default Costs Certificate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment, CPR 6.9, Deemed Service, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Service of Process Setting Aside Judgment CPR 6.9 Deemed Service Costs Orders

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Jeffrey

Claimant/appellant

Michael Teevan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Aside Judgment and Default Costs Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of proceedings on the defendant was valid under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether the claimant took reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant's current address
  3. 3 Effect of a deemed service order not disclosed to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to comply with CPR 6.9 by not taking reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant's current address and not considering alternative methods of service. Service at 26 Windmill Hill was not valid as the claimant knew the defendant did not reside there. The existence of a deemed service order (22 July 2020) did not justify allowing the appeal, as it was not disclosed to the court below or on appeal, and its late invocation was procedurally improper. The appeal was dismissed, the judgment and default costs certificate remain set aside, and indemnity costs were awarded against the claimant due to conduct out of the norm.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of 25 October 2023 set aside
  • Service of all documents (except default costs certificate) dispensed with