• The court clarifies the rules for serving documents on individuals linked to UK companies

Court clarifies rules for serving documents on individuals linked to UK companies

The High Court has clarified how documents can be served on certain individuals who are linked to UK companies, such as directors and persons with significant control (PSC).

Ishtiaq Baig v Zoheb Hassan [2024] EWHC 3555 (KB) concerned a claim in defamation. However, one of the key legal points was the address at which a director of a UK company can be served.

Under section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006, a claimant in legal proceedings is permitted to serve documents on a director or PSC of a UK company at the service address given for that individual at Companies House. This is the case even if the claim does not relate to or involve the company of which the individual is a director or PSC.

Moreover, in doing so, the claimant is entitled to treat the individual as resident in England [and Wales], even if they are actually located elsewhere. This is useful, because, if the service address is in England or Wales, the claimant can avoid the need for the court’s permission to serve documents outside of the jurisdiction.

In this case, the individual argued that section 1140 did not allow the claimant to serve documents on him because, although he had provided a service address in London (UK), he was residing in Pakistan. He also claimed that service was ineffective because the document in question never actually reached the service address due to industrial action by postal officers.

The court disagreed and held that service at a service address in England and Wales is effective, even if the recipient is located overseas.

Moreover, there is no to need to check whether the document has in fact been delivered to the service address or received by the recipient. In this case, a delivery failure attributed to Post Office industrial action had no impact.

Finally, it did not matter that service was not technically possible at the service address due to building works making the property inaccessible.

The case raises useful practical points. For directors and PSCs, a key take-away is to give a service address at which the individual (or someone on their behalf) can actually receive documents.

For those looking to serve documents on a director or PSC, the key point is to ensure that those documents are in fact dispatched to that address, whether or not the recipient resides there and whether or not the address is, in fact, accessible. This does not preclude serving documents on the individual by other means in addition, if that is useful to bring them to the individual’s attention.

You can read more about the decision regarding serving documents on a person linked to a UK company in our colleagues’ separate in-depth piece.

Access the court’s decision in Baig v Hassan regarding serving documents on a person linked to a UK company