Report comment

It has been good to read the support for proper standards of justice.
As a footnote to my piece, in the judicial review I ran on this matter, we had an interesting point on the working of CPR 6. The claimant knew the defendant was no longer living at the property she had been the tenant of, but found there before issuing the claim form a Royal Mail notice saying there was a redirection service in place, although not saying where to. We said this triggered the procedures required where an alternative place or method was in issue [CPR 6.9(4)(b) , ie because the claimant had found an alternative method. This in turn requires an order authorising the new method [CPR 6.15(3)(b)]. The judge found this “an ingenious argument” but dismissed it as even if we were right, it wouldn’t have made any difference as an order for service on the vacant property would have been made anyway. Lawyers complying precisely with the rules of service might well gasp!