Nakiesha Aston v Ryan Tew & Anor

Nakiesha Aston v Ryan Tew & Anor

There is no implied obligation under CPR 6.9(2) for a claimant to exercise reasonable diligence to check whether the defendant still resides at the last known address before serving the claim form. The obligation to make enquiries only arises when the claimant has reason to believe the defendant no longer resides at the address, as expressly provided in CPR 6.9(3). Service at the last known address is valid in the absence of such reason to believe.

Parties
Claimant: Miss Nakiesha Aston; First Defendant: Mr Ryan Tew; Second Defendant: Alwyn Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Judge's Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, CPR 6.9, Reasonable Diligence, Last Known Residence
Civil Procedure Service of Process CPR 6.9 Reasonable Diligence Last Known Residence

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 4 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Judge's Order

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 last known address is valid when 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 whether the defendant still resides at the last known address before serving the claim form. The obligation to make enquiries only arises when the claimant has reason to believe the defendant no longer resides at the address, as expressly provided in CPR 6.9(3). Service at the last known address is valid in the absence of such reason to believe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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