A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law
The first point to note is that service in accordance with the provisions of the EU Service Regulation 1393/2007 (“the Regulation”) is mandatory, and it is not possible to circumvent this procedure through an order for substituted service from the Courts of this country, or by other means (Hornan v Baillie  EWHC 285 (Ch)). However compelling the case for substituted service might be in the present circumstances, it is therefore simply not an option.
The primary method of service under the Regulation is for the serving party to send the claim form to the ‘transmitting agency’ in this country (that is, by filing with the Senior Master via the Foreign Process Section), which will then send the claim form to the ‘receiving agency’ in the Member State of the person to be served, which will itself then serve the claim form in accordance with its own law or by any method requested by the transmitting agency (provided that method is not contrary to the law of the ‘receiving’ Member State). It is also always possible to effect service in accordance with the Regulation by post, provided the postal service used is a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or some equivalent (per art.14). It may also be possible to effect service directly (that is, bypassing the ‘transmitting’ and ‘receiving’ agencies) through judicial officers, officials or “other competent persons” of the ‘receiving’ Member State, provided that is permitted under the law of that Member State (per art.15). Finally, it may be possible to effect service through diplomatic or consular agents in the receiving Member State, provided that Member State has not indicated opposition to this method of service (per art.13).
As in less straitened times, the first point to think about is what methods of service are permitted by the ‘receiving’ Member State: it is futile to assess the impact of Covid-19 upon service by diplomatic or consular channels if the ‘receiving’ Member State has indicated its opposition to service by that method, for example. At the time of writing, this information is available on the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (albeit by reference to the article numbers of the Hague Service Convention): https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=4074&dtid=2
What follows is then to consider the relative merits of each method of service under the Regulation:
The final point to bear in mind is that the Regulation does not apply where the address of the person to be served is unknown (per art.1(2)). In the applicable case, obtaining an order for substituted service by, say, email would bypass many of the difficulties Covid-19 has caused for other methods of service (although the most recent guidance from HMCTS ought to be consulted before making any application to the Court so that this can also be weighed in the balance).
This article was first published by LexisPSL.
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.
Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. However if you have any other queries about this content please contact: