High Court Finds Director Can Be Served With All Documents Relating To Proceedings At Address Registered At Companies House

The High Court has held that section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 permits service on a director, of all documents relating to proceedings against that individual, at the address they have registered at Companies House: Brouwer v Anstey [2019] EWHC 144 (Ch).

The court applied the decision of Master Marsh in Key Homes Bradford Ltd v Patel [2015] 1 BCLC 402 which interpreted section 1140 very widely, so that the section applied regardless of whether the documents being served concerned the directorship or company and regardless of whether the director was resident in England (see post here). The Key Homes decision was not binding in the present case, but the court noted that it appeared in the White Book notes and had stood as the law for nearly five years without appeal. The decision applied, the court held, to the service of proceedings and documents generally.

Where there are difficulties in serving a defendant who is an individual, whether this concerns service of a claim form or documents in the course of the proceedings, it is worth checking whether there is an address registered for that person at Companies House so that you may be able to take advantage of section 1140. Bear in mind, however, particularly where limitation is in issue, that the Court of Appeal has yet to consider the section.

The decision is also of interest in finding that, where a party has ceased to be legally represented and has failed to provide a new address for service, as required under court rules, the default provisions for service of claims forms cannot be used to effect service of subsequent documents in the proceedings. Accordingly, if documents cannot be served personally or under the Companies Act, and the party to be served has not indicated that it will accept service by fax or email, it will be necessary to apply for an order for alternative service, or to dispense with service.

Background

The claimant obtained judgment against the defendant without trial after the points of defence were struck out for the defendant's non-compliance with an unless order. The defendant applied to set aside the judgment.

One of the issues raised was whether the relevant applications and orders were properly served on the defendant after his solicitors ceased to act for him. Up until that point, service was effected on the solicitors in the usual way. When they ceased to act, however, the defendant did not provide, as he should have, a new address for service on him.

...