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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll