One of the defendants had not been properly served by posting the proceedings to an address at which he stayed on his very occasional visits to London. The proceedings had not been issued for the purposes of service abroad, because at the time of deemed service under CPR 6 he was not physically within the jurisdiction: ‘In my judgment there are two separate reasons why Sham has not been validly served. First, the claimants have not adduced any evidence which casts doubt on Sham’s evidence that the address in St John’s Wood is used only occasionally by him on the rare occasions when he visits London. In these circumstances there is no evidence that it ever was a ‘residence’ and it therefore cannot be his ‘last known residence’. Secondly, it has always been, and remains, a fundamental rule of English procedure and jurisdiction that a defendant may be served with originating process within the jurisdiction only if he is present in the jurisdiction at the time of service, or deemed service. The Barclays Bank case is simply an illustration of this principle . . CPR Pt 6 contains general rules about service of documents and does not only apply to service of a claim form . . but I do not consider that CPR 6.5 has swept away the general principle so far as it relates to service of the claim form.’
Mr Justice Collins
[2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [2002] 3 All ER 17, [2002] WTLR 675, (2001-02) 4 ITELR 729
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cadogan Properties Limited v Mount Eden Land Limited CA 29-Jun-1999
If the defendant is outside England, an order for substituted service in England could not be obtained unless permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction has first been obtained. . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Swaziland Ltd v Hahn HL 1989
The House considered the validity of service of proceedings. Documents were served by means of ‘letterbox service’ when the defendant was en-route to this country but was not within the jurisdiction. Later that day he arrived within the jurisdiction . .
Cited by:
Cited – Fairmays (A Firm) v Palmer ChD 31-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed against a decision not to set aside a judgment obtained against him by default. Whilst he retained a property in England, he lived in Ethiopia. The claim was served at the address in England, but was redirected to another . .
Cited – Gomez and others v Vives CA 3-Oct-2008
The claimant appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over income payable to a trust governed by English law under which the claimant was beneficiary.
Held: The appeal failed in part. Because Article 5 is in derogation from . .
Cited – Kamali v City and Country Properties Ltd CA 24-Jul-2006
The defendant tenant appealed against judgment saying that the proceedings in the County Court had not been correctly served. Though the documents had been sent to his address under the lease, he had been out of the jurisdiction when the claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.170252