Comments on: Case of the Day: DDR Señorial LLC v. Prestige Holdings https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/07/05/case-day-ddr-senorial-llc-v-prestige-holdings/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:45:40 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/07/05/case-day-ddr-senorial-llc-v-prestige-holdings/#comment-2573 Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:50:51 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=22887#comment-2573 In reply to P Smith.

A very good question—I don’t see the logic.

]]> By: P Smith https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/07/05/case-day-ddr-senorial-llc-v-prestige-holdings/#comment-2572 Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:57:34 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=22887#comment-2572 Why, if Trinidad & Tobago is not a party to the Hague Service Convention, do the Civil Proceeding Rules 1998 read as if they are?

Aside from the provision of Part 76 that you quote, we also have Rule 7.9(2)(a) expressly providing for service of Trinidad & Tobago process via the Convention authorities and rule 7.10 instructing claimants on how they should go about that.

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/07/05/case-day-ddr-senorial-llc-v-prestige-holdings/#comment-2571 Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:05:55 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=22887#comment-2571 In reply to Aaron Lukken.

Well, one of the problems with this sort of ruling is that it most likely won’t be appealed—DDR will just serve process by the means the court said were required.

]]> By: Aaron Lukken https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/07/05/case-day-ddr-senorial-llc-v-prestige-holdings/#comment-2570 Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:47:55 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=22887#comment-2570 Seems a pretty straightforward issue on appeal (your correct conclusion that the judge here misread the rule).

]]>