Anthony Goodfellow v Warren Boyes & Archer (a firm)

Anthony Goodfellow v Warren Boyes & Archer (a firm)

The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain and serve Mr Archer at his current residential address, as required by CPR r.6.9(3). Service at Roythornes' office was not valid, and there was no good reason to retrospectively validate alternative service under CPR r.6.15. The Defendant's application succeeds and the Claimant's application is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Anthony Goodfellow (as executor of the Estate of William Goodfellow (deceased)); Defendant: Warren Boyes & Archer (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Judgment on Applications Regarding Service of Claim Form and Retrospective Validation Under CPR 6.15
Outcome
Claimant's application dismissed; Defendant's application granted.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Limitation Periods, Alternative Service, Partnership Liability
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Service of Process Limitation Periods Alternative Service Partnership Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Goodfellow (as executor of the Estate of William Goodfellow (deceased))

Claimant

Warren Boyes & Archer (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Judgment on Applications Regarding Service of Claim Form and Retrospective Validation Under CPR 6.15

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether posting the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim to Roythornes' office constituted good service on WBA under CPR r.6.9
  2. 2 Whether the court should retrospectively validate service under CPR r.6.15

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain and serve Mr Archer at his current residential address, as required by CPR r.6.9(3). Service at Roythornes' office was not valid, and there was no good reason to retrospectively validate alternative service under CPR r.6.15. The Defendant's application succeeds and the Claimant's application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application dismissed; Defendant's application granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that there was not good service of the Claim Form on the Defendant.
  • No retrospective validation of service under CPR r.6.15.