Practice & procedure

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.