header-logo header-logo

05 January 2012
Issue: 7495 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice & procedure

Abela and others v Baardarani [2011] EWCA Civ 1571, [2011] All ER (D) 171 (Dec)

CPR 6.37(5)(b)(i) authorised the court to make an order for alternative service pursuant to CPR 6.15(1) and also to make such an order with retrospective effect pursuant to CPR 6.15(2). Nevertheless, the exercise of that power had to be exercised cautiously and was to be regarded as exceptional. Therefore, it would usually be inappropriate to validate retrospectively a form of service which was not authorised by an order of an English judge when it was effected and was not good service by local law.

The fact that CPR 6.40(4) expressly stated that nothing in any court order could authorise or require any person to do anything contrary to the law of the country in which the document was to be served did not mean that it could be appropriate to validate a form of service which, while not itself contrary to the local law in the sense of being illegal, was nevertheless not valid by that law.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll