A sole practitioner being sued in the name of their firm can be served papers at their last known place of business, a court has ruled.

In Ellison Road Ltd v Mian (t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors) & Anor Master Brightwell was asked to consider the validity of the attempted service on solicitor Khurram Mian. He is being sued in his own name, trading under the name HKH Kenwright & Co Solicitors, and was served at what was believed to be his current place of business in central London.

But Mian contended that he was being sued only as an individual and not ‘in the name of a business’ – and so to comply with civil procedure rules he should be served at his usual or last known residence. The service in this case, he therefore submitted, was not compliant with the rules.

Brightwell said there was no authority on whether an individual being sued in the name of a business when they are listed as ‘trading as’ that business.

‘As a matter of general usage, when John Smith is sued trading as JS Autos (the very example given in Practice Direction 16), it seems to me that he is quite explicitly being sued in the name of a business,’ said Brightwell. ‘Accordingly, I consider that in this case Mr Mian is being sued in the name of a business and that service may thus be effected at his principal or last known place of business.’

The court had heard that the claim was for professional negligence, and the claimant alleges that Mian and his firm acted in breach of contract and/or breach of fiduciary duty over advice on a loan agreement.

Service was made in September 2022 after the claimant had checked the HKH Kenwright & Co address on the SRA and Companies House websites. It was found that Mian was now practising as a solicitor from the nearby Moriarty Law Limited because his old building was being redeveloped, and service was made on that address.

Mian’s lawyers said the claimant should have contacted them to ascertain where he was now based and that the service address was not his place of business.

Brightwell found that Mian’s temporary address was his current business address and that the claimant effected good service. The application that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim was dismissed.

 

This article is now closed for comment.