Brucedale and Anor and Vaulks (No 2)

Brucedale and Anor and Vaulks (No 2) concerned an application for substituted service. The applicants, Brucedale and another party, sought an order that Mr Vaulks be taken to have been served with certain documents on 23 January 2020, despite the fact that service had not been effected in accordance with the usual rules. The matter came before Gill J.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicants' request for an order of substituted service. This required the court to consider whether the proposed method of service was likely to bring the documents to the notice of Mr Vaulks, and whether it was just and equitable to make such an order.

Gill J reasoned that the applicants had made out a sufficient case for substituted service. The court applied the principles governing substituted service, which require proof that the proposed alternative method is likely to bring the proceedings to the defendant's attention. Having been satisfied on this point, the court made the order sought by the applicants.

The court ordered that Mr Vaulks be taken to have been served pursuant to rule 7.02 on 23 January 2020 with the documents outlined in the judgment.