Alternative Service Under CPR 6.15: When the Court Will Allow It

Alternative Service Under CPR 6.15: When the Court Will Allow It

Alternative service is the court’s permission to serve a claim form, or another document, by a method or at a place the rules do not otherwise allow. It is not a routine step. The court grants it under rule 6.15 of the Civil Procedure Rules only where the applicant shows a good reason, and getting the application wrong can leave a claimant out of time with nothing validly served. This guide explains when the court is likely to allow it and what evidence it expects to see.

What CPR 6.15 alternative service is

Rule 6.15 lets the court permit service by an alternative method or at an alternative place where the standard rules in Part 6 cannot easily be met. The power works in two directions. Under rule 6.15(1) the court can authorise a method in advance, for example service by email or through a defendant’s solicitor. Under rule 6.15(2) it can order that steps a party has already taken to bring the document to the defendant’s attention count as good service, a retrospective validation that often rescues an imperfect attempt. The distinction matters, because a prospective application and a retrospective one call for slightly different evidence and are argued in different registers.

When the court grants alternative service

The test is good reason, judged on the facts. A claimant who cannot locate a defendant despite genuine enquiries, or who is faced with someone deliberately evading service, has the strongest case. Other common situations include a defendant abroad where the usual channels are slow, or a company that will not confirm who accepts service on its behalf. The court weighs whether the proposed method will actually bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention, which is the practical question at the heart of the rule. It will not act simply because a different route is quicker or more convenient for the claimant.

 

Evidence the court expects

An application stands or falls on the witness statement behind it. The court wants a clear account of what has been tried: the addresses used, the dates, the methods, and why each attempt failed. It also wants to understand why the proposed alternative will work, whether that is an email address the defendant plainly uses or a relative’s home where they are known to stay. Bare assertion that a defendant is hard to reach carries little weight without the detail of real attempts at service, which is why a documented sequence of attempts by a process server so often makes the difference between an application granted and one refused.

Common mistakes

Several errors come up repeatedly, and most are avoidable.

• Applying too late, once a limitation deadline is bearing down, when earlier action would have given the court more options.
• Offering thin evidence of attempts, so the court cannot see that ordinary service was genuinely difficult rather than untried.
• Assuming email or a social media account is automatically acceptable, rather than showing it is current and actively used.
• Confusing the application with deemed service, which is the separate question of when valid service takes effect.

Getting alternative service right

The reliable path is to attempt proper service first, record every step, and apply promptly if those attempts stall. A professional process server who documents each attempt gives the court exactly the evidence rule 6.15 calls for. A well-supported application is far more likely to succeed than one built on assertion, and it protects the claimant’s position on limitation while the court decides how service should be effected.

If a defendant is proving difficult to serve and you may need an alternative service application, Tremark’s process servers can attempt service and evidence it properly, so complete the form below to get in touch.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as a good reason for alternative service?

There is no fixed list. Evading defendants, untraceable whereabouts despite real enquiries, and obstructive corporate defendants are common examples. The court looks at whether the method proposed will genuinely bring the document to the defendant’s attention. Our note on CPR 6.15 sets out the essentials.

Can the court approve service that has already happened?

Yes. Under rule 6.15(2) the court can validate steps already taken as good service where there was good reason for the method used. It is a discretionary remedy, not a certainty.

Is it the same as deemed service?

No. Permission to use a different method or place is one thing. Deemed service is the separate rule fixing the date on which valid service is treated as complete.