Thanks also for noting the “Special Master” error, which I have corrected. We use “Special Master” a lot here, so that was just a lapsus linguae. (I just had the desire to type “lapsus linguae,” apologies for the ridiculousness of the phrase).

Thanks Graham! That is a fair comment, and I am not vouching for the correctness of what the court said about English law—only that the court got to the right result for the wrong reason. I do think that under English law a US litigant cannot effect service via a private process server without going through a solicitor, in light of the UK position on Article 10(c). In other words, the solicitor is the competent person, and he or she engages the process server.

I disagree because for all practical purposes the Senior Master does not get involved in article 10 serves, and so she makes no determination as to the method of service.

Certainly the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) refer to service of foreign documents in England & Wales but CPR 6.51 (“The Senior Master will determine the method of service”) relates to those documents being served further to CPR 6.50 (“The Senior Master will serve a document to which this Section applies upon receipt of…”) and where (eg) “The Senior Master will send to the person who requested service – (a) a certificate [of service or non-service]” (CPR 6.52(a) etc). Thus, for the purposes of the Hague Service Convention, this part of CPR relate to service further to article 5, not article 10.

Article 10 serves simply don’t need to involve the court at all because “the present Convention SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH” (emphasis added) (eg 10(c)) “the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination”,

Now, certainly, Senior Master Whittaker expressed an opinion that only solicitors are “competent persons” in the UK following the letter from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office referred to in the Hague commentary on article 10, and thus a process server instructed direct is not such a person. However, that doesn’t mean that service is invalid because the Senior Master (or in practical terms the Foreign Process Section of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division) isn’t involved in determining the method of service.

As a solicitor I regularly arrange for service of US process in England & Wales further article 10(b) or 10(c). Provided that this is “by a method prescribed by the internal law of the State addressed for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory” (article 15(a)) it is valid, but the court has no role in the matter (indeed, if you read the responses of the UK to the Hague Questionnaire of July 2008 you will see “English/Welsh solicitors receive documents directly from abroad.” stated more than once).