Leave had been given ex parte to serve a number of defendant reinsurers outside the jurisdiction. Six were served with writs in identical form but each of the writs was addressed to the wrong defendant. A seventh defendant was not served with any writ but merely with an acknowledgment of service form bearing the names of all the defendants in the title. Did these steps engage the court’s jurisdiction to exercise its discretion under RSC Order 2, rule 1(2). Phillips J. had held that they did not.
Held: They did in relation to the six defendants, and by a majority also for the defendant who never received a writ. Lloyd LJ. agreed with Phillips J. that in the latter case the failure to serve anything more than an acknowledgement of service form was an omission so serious that it was not a failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules by reason of something left undone. McCowan LJ. and Sir John Megaw held in relation to the latter defendant that there had been an attempt to take a step in the proceedings but a failure to comply with the Rules as to what document should be served for that purpose. There was a purported commencement of proceedings within RSC Order 2, rule 1 in relation to which there had been a failure to comply with a requirement of the Rules.
Judges:
Sir John Megaw, McCowan LJ, Lloyd LJ
Citations:
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2) ComC 30-Jul-2004
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law.
Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.199720