Comments on: Case of the Day: Jenner v. Ecoplus https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/12/27/case-of-the-day-jenner-v-ecoplus/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Mon, 02 Dec 2024 02:36:03 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/12/27/case-of-the-day-jenner-v-ecoplus/#comment-1026 Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:56:09 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=11858#comment-1026 In reply to P Smith.

To me the overriding point is that the US court should not be in the business of deciphering the procedural arcana of foreign service of process laws, particularly when the foreign court in question is one whose procedures are presumptively fair and whose impartiality is not in question, particularly where the parties had a choice of court agreement.

]]> By: P Smith https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/12/27/case-of-the-day-jenner-v-ecoplus/#comment-1025 Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:44:53 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=11858#comment-1025 I was going to suggest that the claim form should have been served together with a copy of the High Court’s order permitting service of the claim form out of jurisdiction and setting the period for filing a response in accordance with CPR 6.36 and 6.37(5), but on reflection it appears that the High Court’s jurisdiction could have been founded on Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and therefore no permission was required to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction (CPR 6.33(2)).

I have tracked down what I believe to be the court service leaflet in question. It is N1C(CC) which must be read with form N9(CC).

These forms are however intended for claims started in the Commercial Court (a specialist court within the Queen’s Bench Division), which is not stated to be the case here but seems reasonable in view of the subject matter (CPR 58.1). Otherwise the defendant should have been supplied with form N1D, which simply refers the defendant to the CPR in order to work out the period in which he is required to respond.

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/12/27/case-of-the-day-jenner-v-ecoplus/#comment-1024 Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:47:27 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=11858#comment-1024 In reply to P Smith.

Thanks as always, P Smith.

]]> By: P Smith https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/12/27/case-of-the-day-jenner-v-ecoplus/#comment-1023 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:25:42 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=11858#comment-1023 The informational leaflet is either misleading or has been misunderstood. What CPR Practice Direction 6B actually says about responding to claims served outside the jurisdiction is this:

“6.3 The period for filing an acknowledgment of service under Part 10 or for filing or serving an admission under Part 14 is the number of days listed in the Table after service of the particulars of claim. [The Table lists 22 days for the US.]

“6.4 The period for filing a defence under Part 15 is –

“(1) the number of days listed in the Table after service of the particulars of claim; or

“(2) where the defendant has filed an acknowledgment of service, the number of days listed in the Table plus an additional 14 days after the service of the particulars of claim.”

In the absence of any response after 28 days the claimants were entitled to request default judgment under CPR 12.3(1).

]]>