Tweet
Can someone please advise on the correct form/process to follow to ask a court (First Tier Tribunal) for the Claimant's address to be disclosed?
I highly suspect that the Claimant has made their claim and has asked for documents to be serviced at an address that they don't actually live at, therefore I will be looking to make an application under CPR 6.23 for the case to be struck out as this states “A party to proceedings must give an address at which that party may be served with documents relating to those proceedings. The address must include a full postcode unless the court orders otherwise”.
The Claimant has redacted their address in all documents submitted thus far - they've resided in Spain for the past 5 years and are using a UK flat they own and rent out as the service address.
Precedent for this was provided by HHJ Bloom in Conlon -v- Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd (County Court at Luton, 2nd December 2021):
19. Finally, and perhaps most important, the court has to ensure compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. As I have already mentioned, Mr Conlon has breached the court order that Deputy District Judge Duncan made because he has not provided any statement at all in support of his position for today’s hearing and he has not attended as required, whether physically or remotely. As far as compliance with rules is concerned, he has not complied with 6.23. Not only has he not complied with it but he has maintained a position which is plainly wrong and the court has no confidence whatsoever, were it to stay these proceedings, that Mr Conlon would comply and provide an address, and nor does the court think it is proportionate or fair for the defendants that this case continues in abeyance, in effect, stayed for a claimant who has deliberately misled the court. The court does know and understands that the consequences of striking it out will be that the limitation period applies, but Mr Conlon has brought this upon himself by lying to the court and failing to correct the position when it became clear that he was not living at Flat 8 Curzon Gate, Grandfield Avenue, Watford and therefore the court takes the view that the correct and proper step to take is to strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) on the basis that it appears to the court there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. And in this instance, where it is maintained before the court today and there is no apology, no acceptance of fault and no indication that were the court to stay it that Mr Conlon would comply. In these circumstances, the court considers that, given this case is now extremely stale anyway, that the case should be struck out and therefore the court strikes out the claim
I highly suspect that the Claimant has made their claim and has asked for documents to be serviced at an address that they don't actually live at, therefore I will be looking to make an application under CPR 6.23 for the case to be struck out as this states “A party to proceedings must give an address at which that party may be served with documents relating to those proceedings. The address must include a full postcode unless the court orders otherwise”.
The Claimant has redacted their address in all documents submitted thus far - they've resided in Spain for the past 5 years and are using a UK flat they own and rent out as the service address.
Precedent for this was provided by HHJ Bloom in Conlon -v- Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd (County Court at Luton, 2nd December 2021):
19. Finally, and perhaps most important, the court has to ensure compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. As I have already mentioned, Mr Conlon has breached the court order that Deputy District Judge Duncan made because he has not provided any statement at all in support of his position for today’s hearing and he has not attended as required, whether physically or remotely. As far as compliance with rules is concerned, he has not complied with 6.23. Not only has he not complied with it but he has maintained a position which is plainly wrong and the court has no confidence whatsoever, were it to stay these proceedings, that Mr Conlon would comply and provide an address, and nor does the court think it is proportionate or fair for the defendants that this case continues in abeyance, in effect, stayed for a claimant who has deliberately misled the court. The court does know and understands that the consequences of striking it out will be that the limitation period applies, but Mr Conlon has brought this upon himself by lying to the court and failing to correct the position when it became clear that he was not living at Flat 8 Curzon Gate, Grandfield Avenue, Watford and therefore the court takes the view that the correct and proper step to take is to strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) on the basis that it appears to the court there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. And in this instance, where it is maintained before the court today and there is no apology, no acceptance of fault and no indication that were the court to stay it that Mr Conlon would comply. In these circumstances, the court considers that, given this case is now extremely stale anyway, that the case should be struck out and therefore the court strikes out the claim
Comment