KB-2024-001295 - [2025] EWHC 3000 (KB)

By an application notice dated 28 May 2025, supported by the third statement of Shahzary Mustafa dated 28 May 2025 (“Mustafa 3”), the Claimant sought a retrospective order for alternative service under CPR 6.27, alternatively permission to dispense with service under CPR 6.28, in relation to service of documents other than the claim form and accompanying evidence on D1.

Mustafa 3 explained that on 10 March 2025, the bundle for the CMC had been sent to D1 at the Federal Correctional Institution facility in Allenwood. On 21 March 2025, the notice of the 9 June 2025 hearing was sent to D1 there, together with the disposal hearing bundle. Tracking documentation was provided for these communications. At some point in early April 2025 the bundles were returned to the CPS offices in London. The hearing notice was not returned.

The CPS liaised with the US authorities and established that D1 had been returned to the UK on 13 April 2025.

On 21 May 2025, attempts were made to serve the two bundles electronically on D1 at two emails known to be linked with D1 from his contact with D2 and D3. However, these emails could not be delivered and the Claimant received “bounce back” messages to that effect.

On 23 May 2025 an attempt was made to serve the bundles at an address in Liverpool linked with D1. A statement from Financial Investigator Stephen Sung dated 23 May 2025 confirmed that the occupants stated that they had purchased the property in 2023 from someone called Nathan O’Connor and were still receiving post in D1’s name. The occupants understandably refused to accept service of the bundles on behalf of D1.

On the same day an attempt was made to serve the hearing bundles on D1 at another address in Liverpool linked with him. D1’s brother was living there and accepted service of the bundles on his brother’s behalf, albeit stating that his brother remained in prison.

According to D1’s mother’s email and her account to me at the outset of the 9 June hearing, the bundles were physically brought to Spain by her sister over the weekend of 7/8 June 2025. She confirmed that both she and D1 had received the bundles for the hearing.

CPR 6.27 gives the court power to order the service of documents other than the claim form by a method alternative to those otherwise permitted where it appears to the court that there is “good reason” to do so. It includes the power to order that steps already taken by a method of service not permitted by the rules to bring a document to the attention of the other party constitutes good service. It is necessary to consider whether the method in question is likely to bring the proceedings in question to the person’s attention. This can be evidenced by the fact that the alternative method has succeeded in doing so.

Here, I indicated during the 9 June 2025 hearing that I would make the order in respect of service sought by the Claimant. I was satisfied that there was good reason to make such an order. The Claimant had made repeated efforts to bring the documents to D1’s attention. The information provided by D1’s mother made clear that they had in fact done so.

On that basis, I approved retrospective service of the CMC bundle and the disposal hearing bundle on D1 under CPR 6.27, by the alternative method of service on his brother, in person, on 23 May 2025, at the Liverpool address referred to in [74] above.

D1’s mother was emailed a copy of Mr Pons’ skeleton argument during the hearing.

Having heard submissions, at the end of the hearing, I indicated that I intended to make the order sought by the Claimant, for reasons to follow in a written judgment.