Alternative Service Is a Fallback, Not a Free Pass

Alternative Service Is a Fallback, Not a Free Pass

Most litigators have met the defendant who simply will not be found. Letters go unanswered, the registered address turns out to be empty, and the clock on the claim form keeps ticking. When conventional service stalls, it is tempting to improvise: fire off the claim form by email or WhatsApp and trust the court to tidy up the paperwork later. The rules do, after all, allow service by alternative methods.

They do, but more narrowly than many assume. The court’s power to permit alternative service, or to approve steps already taken, turns on a single question: was there a good reason? The answer is discretionary, fact-sensitive, and a great deal harder to secure when you are asking forgiveness rather than permission. For solicitors, the safest position has not changed. Exhaust the conventional routes, document every attempt, and ask the court before you improvise.

What CPR 6.15 actually allows

CPR 6.15 lets the court step outside the usual menu of service methods. Under rule 6.15(1), where there is a good reason to do so, it can authorise service by a method or at a place the rules would not otherwise permit. Under rule 6.15(2), it can go further and declare that steps already taken to bring the claim form to a defendant’s attention count as valid service, even though they did not comply with the rules at the time.

In principle that is a flexible, modern power. The courts have approved service by email, text message, WhatsApp, social media, voicemail and even a couriered USB stick, particularly where no sensible alternative exists and the method plainly reaches the defendant, a trend recently surveyed by litigation specialists writing for Legal Futures. But the flexibility sits on top of a firm rule, and the bar rises sharply once service has already gone wrong.

“Good reason” is a real hurdle

The leading authority is the Supreme Court’s decision in Abela v Baadarani. It confirmed that the only test for retrospective validation is good reason, with no separate requirement to show exceptional circumstances (the higher threshold that applies when a party asks to dispense with service altogether under CPR 6.16). The court was willing to validate service in that case partly because the defendant had refused to provide an address, which is exactly the kind of obstruction that gives a claimant a genuine reason to serve another way.

The same case drew a line that catches people out, though. Bringing the claim to the defendant’s attention is the most important function of service, so whether the defendant actually learned of it is a critical factor, but not a sufficient one on its own. Something more is always required.

Two more recent decisions show how easily an application can fail. In Barton v Wright Hassall, a claim form was served by email on solicitors who had never agreed to accept service that way. The defendant knew all about the claim, yet the Supreme Court still refused to validate it, weighing whether reasonable steps had been taken to serve properly, whether the defendant knew the contents in time, and the prejudice of losing an accrued limitation defence. In Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, emailing a defendant who had expressly asked for postal service, on the final day of validity, was held not to be a good reason. The service rules, the court stressed, are “bright-line” rules.

Why a documented serving trail makes the difference

This is where the practical lesson lies. When a defendant is genuinely evasive or cannot be located, the way to establish good reason is to show the court exactly what was tried and why it failed: the addresses attended, the dates and times of each visit, what the server observed, and the enquiries made to confirm the defendant’s whereabouts. A court asked to authorise an alternative method, or to validate service already attempted, wants to see that conventional methods were pursued diligently first.

A professional process server produces precisely that evidence as a matter of course. Where attempts at service fail, an experienced server gathers evidence and prepares a witness statement of those attempts to support an application for alternative service. That contemporaneous record is far more persuasive than a bare assertion that the defendant could not be found. It demonstrates the diligence the court is looking for, and it protects the claimant against a later challenge to the validity of service once judgment is in sight.

Where the difficulty is not evasion but genuine disappearance, the same logic applies a step earlier. A proper trace either locates the defendant so that conventional service can be carried out, or builds the documented basis for an alternative-service application if they remain out of reach. Tremark Associates has supported solicitors and law firms in this way for more than 30 years, with a UK-wide network of accredited process servers and tracing agents and membership of the World Association of Detectives for matters that cross borders.

The safest course

For anyone running contentious work, the takeaway is straightforward. Treat alternative service as a fallback, not a first resort. Attempt the conventional methods, keep a meticulous record of every attempt, and seek the court’s permission before improvising. If a defendant is dodging service or has gone to ground, instruct a process server or tracing agent early, so the evidence of diligence is built into the file from the outset.

The rules may yet loosen: in late 2025 the Civil Procedure Rule Committee opened a consultation on modernising electronic service. Whatever changes may come, the need for certainty, reliable evidence of service, and strict compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules will remain. Personal process serving continues to provide the clearest evidence that documents have been served correctly, helping to minimise disputes and reduce the risk of costly procedural challenges.  Until then, the case law is consistent. A careless breach can hand the defendant a complete answer to the claim, so get the groundwork right and the application becomes far more straightforward.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as a “good reason” for alternative service?

There is no fixed list. The court wants a genuine explanation of why service could not be carried out by the normal methods. Evidence that a defendant is deliberately evading service, or cannot be located despite diligent, documented attempts, supports the argument. The fact that a defendant happens to know about the claim is relevant, but not enough on its own.

Why instruct a professional process server if a defendant is hard to find?

A professional server provides an independent, contemporaneous record of every attempt at service, which is exactly the evidence a court expects to see before authorising or validating an alternative method. That documented trail strengthens an application for alternative service and helps protect against a later challenge to the validity of service.