Proving Service: Court Reaches Judgment After Defendants Ignore a Claim

Proving Service: Court Reaches Judgment After Defendants Ignore a Claim

A judgment handed down on 10 August 2026 shows how far proving service can carry a claimant when the people on the other side refuse to engage. In SQN Global Ltd v Hughes [2026] EWHC 2056 (Ch), the Insolvency and Companies Court held a disposal hearing and reached a decision against six defendants who neither filed defences nor attended, because the certificates of service in the hearing bundle established that each of them had in fact been served.

The underlying claim was a fraudulent trading claim under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, first issued by the liquidators of a haulage company in January 2025 and later assigned to the claimant. The substance of that dispute matters less to a litigator than the procedural spine of the ruling, which rested on documents any claimant solicitor or process server will recognise.

What the court decided on proving service

The defendants filed no defences after repeated directions and were debarred from defending the claim. When the matter came on for disposal, none of them appeared. One defendant had emailed the court asserting “Improper Service”, complaining that repeated attempts at service had been made to incorrect addresses, including those of family members, and that he had been wrongly identified as a party.

ICC Judge Mullen was not deflected. The judge recorded that the papers showed the defendants were aware of the hearing and that there were certificates of service in the bundle proving service of the documents upon each of the defendants. Because service was proved, the court was satisfied it could deal with the claim in their absence. The episode is a plain illustration of why proving service, rather than merely asserting it, is what allows litigation to move forward against an uncooperative opponent.

Proving service did not lower the burden of proof

The ruling carries a second lesson that cuts the other way. A debarring order stops a defendant from participating, but it does not hand the claimant a win. The judge reminded the parties, citing the commentary in the White Book at 29.9.2 and Michael v Phillips [2017] EWHC 1084 (QB), that the claimant still had to prove every fact on which its case depended on the balance of probabilities. Good service opens the door to judgment; it does not walk the claimant through it.

The service history behind the ruling

The chronology is instructive. The original claim form, particulars of claim and response pack were served on the defendants on 24 January 2025. An amended claim form and particulars were served on 20 March 2025, but the version served appeared to be unsealed, so the court later directed that a sealed copy of the amended claim form be served by 4pm on 27 October 2025. Re-service of a properly sealed document, and a clear record of when each step was taken, is exactly what produced usable certificates of service by the time of the disposal hearing.

For a defendant who says the wrong address was used, the answer is the same evidence in reverse. A certificate of service that records a method and an address the recipient can challenge is far more valuable than an informal note, which is why the correct current address is worth establishing before service rather than after a dispute begins.

 

What litigators should take from the ruling

The case is a reminder to treat proof of service as a working part of the file, not an afterthought. Keep a certificate of service for every document that starts or advances proceedings, record the method and address used, and confirm the address before service where a recipient may be evasive or mobile. Where a defendant genuinely cannot be found at a known address, an application for alternative service is the route the rules provide, and it depends on showing the court what steps were taken. A process server who understands how service is proved and completes a compliant certificate of service gives a claimant the evidence a court will act on, even when the other side stays silent.

The relevant rules on certificates and proof sit in CPR Part 6, and the ruling is a timely example of them working in practice.

If you need proceedings served and proved to a standard the court will rely on, fill in the form below to speak to the Tremark process serving team.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does proving service actually require?

It requires a record showing that a document was served by a permitted method at a correct address on a stated date, usually set out in a certificate of service. That record is what a court examines when a party disputes whether they were served.

Can a court give judgment if a defendant does not attend?

Yes, where service is proved and the defendant has chosen not to engage. As this ruling shows, the court can proceed in the defendant’s absence, although the claimant must still prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

What happens if a defendant says the wrong address was used?

The court looks at the evidence of service. A clear certificate of service recording the address and method used allows the judge to decide whether service was good, which is why establishing the correct address before service is so valuable.