Weston v Bates & Anor

For service of a claim form outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.40(3)(c), English law determines what document must be served, while the law of the country of service determines the permitted method. The domestic requirements for service within the jurisdiction cannot be imported into Section IV of Part 6. Where service by a method permitted by foreign law successfully brings the claim form to the defendant’s attention, the CPR imposes no additional requirement that a particular sealed, original, or first-generation hard copy be used. Serving a court-sealed copy remains advisable because it may avoid later disputes about authenticity.

The claimant brought a libel action against Mr Bates, who lived in Monaco, and Leeds United Football Club Ltd. The claim form was issued on 30 July 2010, shortly before limitation expired. Permission was later granted to serve Mr Bates in Monaco. Local agents served documents by a method permitted by Monaco law, but the claim form left for collection was a black-and-white printout of an electronic copy rather than a court-sealed hard copy.

Master McCloud held that service was valid under CPR 6.40(3)(c), dismissed Mr Bates’s jurisdiction application, and granted permission to appeal. The issue before the High Court was whether service under that rule required the particular sealed claim form, or whether successful service by a method permitted by the law of Monaco was sufficient.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the Master’s declaration that it had jurisdiction.
2. English law determines what is required to be served. The law of the country of service determines the method by which service may be effected. The requirements governing service within the jurisdiction cannot be read into CPR 6.40(3)(c).
3. The provisions governing Hague Convention service, including the express requirement for a sealed copy, assist only in construing Section IV. They do not establish a sealed-copy requirement for service under CPR 6.40(3)(c). The discussion in Phillips v Nussberger was therefore of no assistance on the present issue because it concerned Hague Convention service.
4. Under CPR 6.40(3)(c), the relevant question is whether the steps required by the law of the country of service successfully brought the claim form to the defendant’s attention. There is no further requirement to use a particular hard copy. “Claim form” is a matter of substance, not a reference to one physical document. The service in Monaco was therefore valid.
5. The observations about an “original claim form” in Cranfield v Bridgrove Ltd did not establish a general sealed-copy requirement. They were obiter, arose in a different statutory and procedural context, and had to be understood in context.
6. CPR Part 3.10 involves first identifying an error of procedure and then deciding whether to remedy it. At this stage of the appeal, only the first question was before the court.
7. It remained advisable normally to serve a court-sealed copy. Failure to do so may cause delay and additional costs if authenticity must later be proved by other means.

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Master McCloud dismissed Mr Bates’s application, declared that the court had jurisdiction, and granted permission to appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld that decision.