Commencing a claim - Service by alternative methods

Learning Outcomes

This article explains service by alternative methods and related time-limit issues under the Civil Procedure Rules, including:

• When and how the court may authorise service by alternative methods or at alternative places under CPR 6.15.
• The evidential requirements, forms, and practical steps for making a robust application where standard service has failed.
• How the court exercises its discretion, applies the “good reason” test, and evaluates attempts at ordinary service.
• How to select, justify, and draft orders for methods likely to bring proceedings to the defendant’s attention.
• The difference between prospective authorisation and retrospective validation of non-standard service under CPR 6.15(2).
• Specific rules for electronic service under PD 6A, including consent, technical limits, and common traps in SQE1 questions.
• The four-month validity period for a claim form, the test for extensions under CPR 7.6, and interaction with alternative service.
• Circumstances in which the court may dispense with service under CPR 6.16 and why this is exceptional.
• Constraints on service out of the jurisdiction (CPR 6.32, 6.33, PD 6B), local-law compliance, and the Hague Service Convention.
• Typical pitfalls, exam-style scenarios, and strategies for analysing multiple overlapping service issues under time pressure.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the rules and practicalities of commencing a claim, including service by alternative methods, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The circumstances in which the court may authorise service by alternative methods or at alternative places under CPR 6.15.
• The requirements for making an application for alternative service and the evidence needed, including use of Form N244 and appropriate witness statements (PD 23A).
• The court’s discretion and the factors considered when granting alternative service, including the need for “good reason” and likelihood of notification.
• The conditions for service by electronic means (PD 6A), including express consent for email and limitations on format and attachment size.
• Retrospective validation of steps already taken under CPR 6.15(2).
• The strict time limit for service of a claim form (four months) and the test for extensions under CPR 7.6 before and after expiry.
• Dispensing with service under CPR 6.16 (exceptional circumstances only).
• Deemed service rules (CPR 6.14 for claim forms; CPR 6.26 for other documents) and their interaction with alternative methods.
• Service out of the jurisdiction (CPR 6.32 and 6.33, PD 6B), including compliance with local law and the Hague Service Convention.
• Address requirements for service (CPR 6.9) and pitfalls when serving on solicitors without express authority to accept service.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Under what rule can the court authorise service of a claim form by a method not otherwise permitted by the Civil Procedure Rules?
2. What must a claimant show to persuade the court to allow service by an alternative method?
3. True or false? Service by email is always valid if the claimant knows the defendant’s email address.
4. Which of the following is NOT a factor the court will consider when deciding whether to permit alternative service? a) The likelihood the defendant will be notified of proceedings
   b) The claimant’s attempts at standard service
   c) The defendant’s willingness to settle
   d) The interests of justice

Introduction

When commencing a civil claim, the claimant must serve the claim form and other documents on the defendant using methods set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). However, there are situations where standard service is not possible—perhaps the defendant cannot be found, is evading service, or is outside the jurisdiction. In these cases, the court may authorise service by an alternative method or at an alternative place under CPR 6.15. The focus is to ensure that the proceedings are brought to the defendant’s attention in a manner consistent with fairness and the overriding objective, while respecting time limits and prescribed methods. Where electronic service is proposed, special rules in Practice Direction 6A apply and the court will insist on express consent or authorisation. In rare cases, the court may dispense with service entirely under CPR 6.16, but this is exceptional. This article explains the requirements, procedure, and practical considerations for service by alternative methods, the court’s approach to discretion, the possibility of retrospective validation, and key examples relevant for SQE1.

Service by Alternative Methods: Legal Basis

The main rule governing alternative service is CPR 6.15. This allows the court to authorise service by a method or at a place not otherwise permitted by Part 6, if there is “good reason” to do so. The court may make the order prospectively (authorising steps to be taken) or retrospectively (validating steps already taken if they were likely to bring the claim form to the defendant’s attention).

Key Term: alternative service
Service of a claim form or other document by a method or at a place not expressly permitted by the standard rules, as authorised by the court under CPR 6.15.

Key Term: CPR 6.15
The Civil Procedure Rule that empowers the court to permit alternative service where there is good reason, including authorising non-standard methods or places and validating steps already taken if they were likely to notify the defendant.

Key Term: dispensing with service (CPR 6.16)
A separate power enabling the court to dispense with service of the claim form in exceptional circumstances, usually where service is impossible and it is just for the claim to proceed without service.

When Can Alternative Service Be Used?

The court will only authorise alternative service if standard methods (such as personal service, first-class post, document exchange, or delivery to an address permitted by CPR 6.9) are impracticable or have failed, or where there is clear evasion by the defendant. The claimant must show that reasonable steps have been taken to try to effect service by permitted methods, and that the proposed alternative method or place is likely to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention. The court expects evidence of diligent attempts: attendance at known addresses, enquiries with neighbours or employers, engagement of an enquiry agent, searches of public records, and any relevant correspondence history.

Key Term: good reason
A justification required by the court to permit alternative service, usually involving evidence that standard service is impossible or ineffective, and that the alternative method is likely to notify the defendant.

The four-month validity period for service of the claim form remains critical. An alternative service order does not of itself extend time. If delay threatens expiry, the claimant should consider an application to extend time under CPR 7.6, ideally before the four-month period expires. After expiry, the test for an extension is stricter: the court must be satisfied that the court failed to serve or that the claimant took all reasonable steps to serve but was unable to do so, and that the application has been made promptly.

Court’s Discretion and Key Factors

The decision to allow alternative service is discretionary. The court will consider:

• The claimant’s attempts to serve by standard methods, including steps taken to ascertain the defendant’s current address.
• Evidence of evasion, concealment, or inability to locate the defendant notwithstanding reasonable enquiries.
• Whether the alternative method or place is likely to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention (for example, an email address used by the defendant in recent communications, a regularly accessed social media account, or posting on the door at an address where the defendant still collects mail).
• The interests of justice and fairness to both parties, including the defendant’s opportunity to respond and any prejudice arising from the proposed method.

The court will not grant alternative service merely for convenience or to save time or cost. It must be satisfied that the proposed route is not speculative and will probably succeed in notifying the defendant. Where the defendant has nominated solicitors to accept service, the claimant must serve on those solicitors unless the court orders otherwise.

Worked Example 1.1

A claimant has tried to serve a claim form at the defendant’s last known address, but the defendant has moved and cannot be traced. The claimant knows the defendant is active on a particular social media account. Can the court authorise service via social media?

Answer:
Yes, if the claimant provides evidence that standard service has failed and that the defendant is likely to see the documents via the social media account, the court may authorise service by that method under CPR 6.15.

Practical Steps and Evidence Required

To apply for alternative service, the claimant must file an application notice (usually Form N244) with supporting evidence. The application may be made with or without notice depending on urgency, but the court will often expect notice unless exceptional circumstances exist (PD 23A).

The evidence should include:

• A chronology of all attempts at standard service, including dates, locations, and outcomes.
• Steps taken to verify or identify the defendant’s current whereabouts (enquiry agent reports, address searches, communications).
• Why the proposed alternative method or place is likely to notify the defendant (e.g., proof of recent email exchanges, screen captures showing recent activity on a named social media account, delivery receipts for messaging apps, evidence the defendant still visits or receives mail at a proposed address).
• Confirmation of the claim form’s remaining validity period and any need for a concurrent application to extend time under CPR 7.6.
• A draft order specifying the precise method(s), place(s), and deemed date(s) of service the court is asked to authorise.

The application should specify the exact method proposed (e.g., email, WhatsApp, social media direct message, service on a relative at a specific address, posting at a workplace, or affixing to the door at the last known address) and, where helpful, seek directions on deemed dates and any ancillary steps (such as simultaneous posting to the last known address and emailing to known accounts). Where the court authorises alternative service, the order typically stipulates the methods, addresses, and timing, and may deem service effective on a specified date to avoid disputes about when time starts to run.

Where electronic means are proposed, address the PD 6A requirements and state any limitations (file formats, attachment sizes, security protocols) agreed by the recipient or ordered by the court. Keep detailed records of the steps taken under the order and promptly file a certificate of service in accordance with CPR.

Worked Example 1.2

A claimant has an email address for the defendant, which has been used for recent correspondence. Attempts at personal and postal service have failed. What should the claimant do?

Answer:
The claimant should apply to the court for permission to serve by email, providing evidence of failed standard service and that the defendant regularly uses the email address. If granted, service by email will be valid. The order should specify the email address, any format limits under PD 6A, and the deemed date of service.

Electronic Service and Modern Methods

Courts increasingly permit service by electronic means where appropriate. Examples include:

• Email (if the defendant has expressly agreed to accept service by email or the court authorises the method, and evidence shows the defendant is likely to read it).
• Social media (if the account is active and controlled by the defendant).
• Messaging apps (such as WhatsApp or SMS, if evidence shows the defendant uses them and the court authorises service).

However, service by email or electronic means is not valid unless the court has authorised it or the defendant (or their solicitor) has expressly agreed to accept service by that method. For email, PD 6A requires express consent and encourages parties intending to serve electronically to ask the recipient about limitations (for example, permitted formats and maximum attachment sizes). A fax number on a solicitor’s letterhead can be sufficient indication of willingness to accept service by fax, but an email address on headed paper does not, without more, amount to consent to email service.

Key Term: electronic service
Service of documents by electronic means (e.g., email, social media, messaging apps), permitted only if expressly authorised by the court or agreed by the defendant under PD 6A, with any stated limitations respected.

Deemed service remains governed by the CPR: for claim forms, CPR 6.14 deems service on the second business day after the relevant step; for other documents, CPR 6.26 applies (e.g., email sent before 4.30 p.m. on a business day is deemed served that day, otherwise the next business day). Where the court authorises an alternative method, it can also specify the date on which service is deemed to have occurred.

Retrospective Validation of Service

The court may retrospectively validate service already carried out by an alternative method if it is satisfied that the defendant was likely to be notified and that there was good reason for using that method (CPR 6.15(2)). This is useful if a claimant has served documents in good faith by a non-standard method before seeking the court’s permission. The court will examine the steps taken, whether the defendant had actual notice, and the reasonableness of the claimant’s choice in the circumstances.

Retrospective validation does not extend the validity period of the claim form. If the four-month period is close to expiring, the claimant should apply promptly both to validate the steps taken and, if necessary, to extend time under CPR 7.6. After expiry, extensions are only granted in limited scenarios and require prompt applications supported by evidence of “all reasonable steps” taken to serve in time.

Worked Example 1.3

A claimant, unable to locate the defendant, sends the claim form by email and later applies for retrospective validation. The defendant responds to the email. Will the court validate service?

Answer:
If the court is satisfied that the email brought the proceedings to the defendant’s attention and that standard service was not possible, it is likely to validate service under CPR 6.15(2). The court may also specify the deemed date of service in the order. If the claim form is nearing expiry, the claimant should consider a concurrent application to extend time under CPR 7.6.

International Service and Alternative Methods

Where the defendant is outside England and Wales, service must comply with international rules and local law. The court may authorise alternative service abroad only if standard methods are unavailable or have failed, and if the foreign country’s law allows it. Service out of the jurisdiction is governed by CPR 6.32 and 6.33, together with Practice Direction 6B. Service in Scotland or Northern Ireland does not require permission, but must comply with the rules applicable to those jurisdictions (CPR 6.32). Service elsewhere often requires the court’s permission (CPR 6.33 and PD 6B), and following EU withdrawal, permission will typically be needed for service in EU Member States for claims issued after 1 January 2021.

Key Term: Hague Service Convention
An international treaty setting out procedures for serving documents abroad in civil and commercial matters between signatory countries.

The court will not authorise alternative service in a foreign country if it would breach that country’s law or applicable international agreements. Even where alternative service is authorised, the court expects compliance with any mandatory local requirements (for example, involvement of central authorities, use of diplomatic channels, or specified forms). Where appropriate, the court may direct service via the foreign central authority under the Hague Service Convention and will typically extend the service period to six months for service out of the jurisdiction.

Exam Warning

The court will not authorise alternative service in a foreign country if it would breach that country’s law or international agreements. Always check the requirements for service in the relevant jurisdiction and whether court permission is needed under PD 6B.

Worked Example 1.4

A claimant issues a claim governed by English law against a company domiciled in France and asks the court to authorise service by WhatsApp to a French mobile number without seeking permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. Is this likely to be allowed?

Answer:
No. For a defendant in France, permission to serve out is typically required for claims issued after 1 January 2021, and the method must comply with French law and applicable treaties. The court is unlikely to authorise service by WhatsApp in those circumstances. The claimant should apply for permission under PD 6B and effect service in accordance with local and treaty requirements (often via the French central authority), with the service period extended to six months.

Dispensing with Service

In very rare and exceptional cases, the court may dispense with service of the claim form under CPR 6.16. This power is reserved for situations where service is impossible and it is just to allow the proceedings to continue without service (for example, extreme urgency combined with demonstrable impossibility of service). An application under CPR 6.16 must be supported by detailed evidence and will often be determined without notice, but the threshold is high. Where service can be achieved by an alternative method, CPR 6.15 is the appropriate route; applicants should not rely on CPR 6.16 merely to avoid the inconvenience of ordinary service.

Common Pitfalls and Practical Considerations

• Do not assume service by email or social media is valid unless expressly authorised by the court or expressly agreed under PD 6A.
• Always keep detailed records of all attempts at standard service and enquiries made to locate the defendant. If relying on a last known address (CPR 6.9), take reasonable steps to verify whether the defendant still resides or receives mail there; otherwise consider an application for alternative service rather than relying on outdated information.
• The proposed alternative method must be likely to notify the defendant—not just theoretically possible. Provide robust evidence to support that likelihood (recent use of contact details, activity logs, delivery receipts).
• If the defendant is deliberately evading service, provide evidence (e.g., returned mail, enquiry agent statements, communications indicating avoidance).
• Be mindful of the four-month validity period for serving the claim form. An alternative service order does not extend time; apply under CPR 7.6 in good time if needed.
• Where the court or the claimant serves, ensure inclusion of the response pack when serving the claim form; omissions can render service ineffective.
• After obtaining an alternative service order, comply precisely with the steps authorised (method, address, timing) and promptly file a certificate of service.
• For service out of the jurisdiction, seek permission where required and comply with the relevant local law and the Hague Service Convention.

Worked Example 1.5

A claim form is issued two days before limitation expires. The claimant asks the court to serve by first-class post, but the court’s letter is returned undelivered. Three months later, the claimant emails the defendant the claim form and asks the court to retrospectively validate service after the four-month period has expired. What is the likely outcome?

Answer:
The court may be sympathetic if the defendant clearly had notice via the email, but retrospective validation does not extend the four-month period. An out-of-time extension under CPR 7.6 after expiry requires evidence that all reasonable steps were taken to serve in time and that the application was made promptly. On these facts, the claimant should have acted sooner, either applying for alternative service and/or an extension before expiry. The court may refuse an out-of-time extension unless the strict test is met; if validation is granted, it will not cure lateness unless the validated service occurred within the validity period.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The court may authorise service by alternative methods under CPR 6.15 if there is good reason, including authorising non-standard methods or places and validating prior steps.
• The claimant must show failed or impracticable attempts at standard service and that the alternative method is likely to notify the defendant; a detailed evidential record is essential.
• Applications require a clear draft order and supporting evidence; consider if a concurrent CPR 7.6 extension is needed to preserve time.
• Electronic service is only valid if authorised by the court or agreed by the defendant; PD 6A requires express consent and consideration of any limitations.
• Retrospective validation under CPR 6.15(2) is possible where steps taken were likely to notify the defendant; it does not automatically extend time.
• International service must comply with local law and treaties; service out of the jurisdiction commonly requires permission under PD 6B, with time extended to six months; the court will not authorise methods that breach foreign law or the Hague Service Convention.
• Dispensing with service under CPR 6.16 is reserved for exceptional cases; alternative service should be used where possible.
• Deemed service rules continue to apply (CPR 6.14 for claim forms, CPR 6.26 for other documents), and the court can specify deemed dates when authorising alternative service.

Key Terms and Concepts

• alternative service
• CPR 6.15
• good reason
• electronic service
• Hague Service Convention
• dispensing with service (CPR 6.16)