header-logo header-logo

Service fit for a prince?

01 October 2021 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 7950 / Categories: Features , International justice
printer mail-detail
59357
The personal touch: Athelstane Aamodt untangles the complexities of US service of court papers

The fact that Virginia Giuffre has launched civil proceedings in New York against HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York for (among other things) sexual assault cannot have escaped anyone’s notice. The Duke has consistently denied all of the allegations that Ms Giuffre has made—and has also said that he has no recollection of meeting her—but this has not stopped a huge number of column inches being consumed with discussion of the case.

One particular aspect of the case has generated a lot of interest: the efforts of Ms Giuffre’s representatives to try and ‘serve’ the court papers on the prince. The notion of being served in this fashion is an unusual one for English (and indeed British) lawyers. Proceedings in this jurisdiction are issued by the court—usually by post—and can even be commenced online since the advent of www.moneyclaim.gov.uk. Why, therefore, do the legal systems in the US generally require defendants to be served personally?

Clause

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

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
back-to-top-scroll