Ellison Road Ltd v Mian (t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors) & Anor [2023] EWHC 375 (Ch) (28 February 2023)

Ellison Road Ltd v Mian (t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors) & Anor [2023] EWHC 375 (Ch) (28 February 2023)

The first defendant was sued in the name of a business, so service at his current business address as identified on the SRA website was valid under CPR rule 6.9(2) and (3), and the claimant took reasonable steps to ascertain that address. Accordingly, service was valid and the first defendant's application was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 375 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Ellison Road Limited; First Defendant: Khurram Mian t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors; Second Defendant: Moriarty Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Validity of Service of Claim Form
Outcome
First defendant's application dismissed; service of claim form held valid.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, CPR Rule 6.9, CPR Rule 6.15, Limitation Period, Solicitor's Duty, Business Names in Litigation
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Service of Claim Form CPR Rule 6.9 CPR Rule 6.15 Limitation Period Solicitor's Duty Business Names in Litigation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellison Road Limited

Claimant

Khurram Mian t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors

First Defendant

Moriarty Law Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Validity of Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form on the first defendant at 20 Old Bailey was valid under CPR rule 6.9(2) and (3)
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was sued in the name of a business for the purposes of CPR rule 6.9(2)
  3. 3 Whether reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the first defendant's current business address

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was sued in the name of a business, so service at his current business address as identified on the SRA website was valid under CPR rule 6.9(2) and (3), and the claimant took reasonable steps to ascertain that address. Accordingly, service was valid and the first defendant's application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

First defendant's application dismissed; service of claim form held valid.

Orders

  • Claimant's service of the claim form on the first defendant at 20 Old Bailey is valid.
  • First defendant's application for declaration of no jurisdiction is dismissed.