Comments on: Case of the Day: St. Ventures v. KBA Assets & Acquisitions https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/07/case-of-the-day-st-ventures-v-kba-assets-acquisitions/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Sun, 01 Dec 2024 03:33:09 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/07/case-of-the-day-st-ventures-v-kba-assets-acquisitions/#comment-1299 Sat, 11 May 2013 14:56:41 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=14027#comment-1299 In reply to P Smith.

Thanks, P. Smith!

]]> By: P Smith https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/07/case-of-the-day-st-ventures-v-kba-assets-acquisitions/#comment-1298 Fri, 10 May 2013 22:30:50 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=14027#comment-1298 The case-initiating document in England and Wales is the “claim form”. Service of a claim form within England and Wales is governed by Section II of Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 6.3 to 6.19). Ordinarily the court will serve the claim form, unless a rule or practice direction requires the claimant to serve it or the claimant wishes to serve it (CPR 6.4(1)).

There is no restriction on who can actually effect service of a claim form on the claimant’s behalf and it is common practice for solicitors themselves to instruct process servers (when they don’t opt to serve by first class post, which is the court’s preferred method).

It is probably best practice for foreign interested persons to instruct a solicitor to arrange service, but to hold that Article 10(c) does not permit a foreign interested person to instruct a process server directly is to be absurdly technical. The 1980 letter clarifying the UK’s declarations on Article 10(c) in fact indicates that “solicitor” is merely an example of a competent person.

Here service appears to have been sufficient under English law: a company may be served by leaving documents at its registered office (CPR 6.3(2)(b), Companies Act 2006 s. 1139(1)).

]]>