Supreme Court ruling marks a "shift in emphasis"
A unanimous Supreme Court ruling in a fraud case has marked a “shift of emphasis” to alternative service of claims in a foreign jurisdiction.
Abela & Ors v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44 centred on whether CPR 6.15(2) could be used retrospectively to validate steps taken to serve a claim form even if the defendant is not within the jurisdiction.
Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Clarke said that, in cases not involving the Hague Service Convention or a bilateral service treaty, the court need only be satisfied that there is “good reason” for alternative service and not exceptional reasons.
There is no bilateral service treaty between the UK and Lebanon. The claim form was served on the defendant’s lawyers in Beirut.
A statement by PCB Litigation, which acted for Abela, said: “The case is important in multi-jurisdictional cases, marking a shift away from the view that serving English proceedings on a foreign national is interfering with the sovereignty of a foreign state, a view that often adds to the burden on the claimant seeking to serve foreign defendants.”
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
