Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but served only eventually made with letters claimed to be equivocal. The question was what constituted service.
Held: ‘[T]he party serving the documents delivers it into the possession or control of the recipient or takes steps to cause it to be so delivered. But, as the authorities recognise, a party delivering the claim form may say that he is not delivering it by way of service, but for information only. If he does so he is to be taken at his word. ‘ The form sent by fax ‘delivered to HTD, by a permitted method of service, a claim form, and thereby not only brought to their attention the fact that that the claim form had been issued but also provided them with a copy of it. Mays Brown did not indicate that the form was provided to them subject to a condition that it was for information only, or that, although delivered, it was not to be regarded as served. When a claim form is delivered to the recipient in a manner provided for by the rules it is, in my view, served unless it is made clear by the person who delivers it that, whilst he is delivering the form by such a method he is not in fact serving it. ‘ They had not said that the form was sent for information purposes only, and the form was served.
Christopher Clarke J
[2005] EWHC 2443 (Comm)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 6.9
Citing:
AppliedCranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc CA 14-May-2003
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused.
Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to . .
CitedGodwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
CitedAnderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
CitedWilkey and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another CA 22-Oct-2002
The applicant’s claim had been dismissed for late service. The defendant had in fact received the documents, but the service appeared deemed to be out of time. The subsequent decisions of Anderton and Godwin meant that the judge’s reasoning no . .
CitedMorgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005
The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.234736