How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Senior Partner Your Own Question
Senior Partner
Senior Partner, Solicitor
Category: UK Law
Satisfied Customers: 13323
Experience:  30 years experience in business law and related topics such as employment law
18726264
Type Your UK Law Question Here...
Senior Partner is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In a Statement of Claim; where a company is suing another company,

This answer was rated:

In a Statement of Claim; where a company is suing another company, naming ( in DEFENDANT field ) the other company c/o an individual ( for example, ABC Ltd c/o John Doe )...Does that mean that, in this example, ABC and John Doe were being named as co-defendants?....Reason I am asking this is because a Statement of Claim framed as above was dismissed earlier this year....However, a month ago the Plaintiff, served the identical Statement of Claim on "John Doe." (named as sole Defendant this time)....Would this situation constitute "Double Jeopardy", and therefore this case should be dismissed as well....Its Barbados, but it follows UK and Australian Law standards
Thank you for your question. saying something is c/o John Doe is meaningless really as it is just an address. A company should be served at it's registered office which would not normally be c/o of anybody.
c/o in my understanding means "care of". "co" can mean conjunct.

It is not "double jeopardy" ( that is a criminal term - in civil law it is res judicata - the thing has been decided). You can sue a different person for the same claim.

I have no doubt you can use the fact that the claimant does not really know who to sue in the defence. If it is a contract claim it should be clear who the claimant was dealing with.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.


The original claim was served on me personally, and not at the company address in the DEFENDANT field.......So my point was, and still is, was the original Statement of Claim naming, in my case,


 


Donnavin Inc., c/o Dr. Richard Levin,XXXXX Chelsea Road, St. Michael...... As co-defendants???.....If so, Does the Plaintiff now have the legal right to now name Dr. Richard Levin, when that original case was already dismissed?...Thank you....Your kind response please....

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Regardless if you decide to answer my reply or not...I just want to thank you for the argument of "res judicata".....Its brilliant and will work to defend my case.....I congratulate you and I am now very confident this money was well worth the information......regards....Richard

I apologise for the delay I was not notified of your response.

as I said serving something c/o doe not make you co defendant . It Is simply descriptive of the address. It ought to have been served on the companies registered office but if it was struck out anyway it does not matter.

It does not stop them suing you personally I am afraid.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.


One last question from your response...

 

I was told by an attorney here that it was rather irregular to list my name with address, and usually "only" company name with address is listed in "DEFENDANT" field..

That being said;

 

If the Claim was served on me personally "outside" the business address, can it be argued that in fact the "c/o" can be understood as co-defendant, assuming Plaintiff will use your argument of address reference?.....In other words, is the location of service critical enough to attempt using that argument?....Thank you....Richard

I certainly agree that it is unusual to address a company c/o an individual.

The fact that it was served you possibly incorrectly is only relevant in contesting valid service on the company i am afraid. There is nothing that suggests the original process was intended issued against you as co defendant.

If you understood it to be as co defendant then you could or would presumably have field an acknowledgement and defence which I assume you did not do .
Senior Partner and 2 other UK Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related UK Law Questions