Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v Boris Shipping Ltd & Ors

Where judicial documents must be served abroad under the Hague Convention, alternative service should generally be ordered only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the destination state has objected to postal or other direct service under Article 10. Contractual agreement to service through an agent, knowledge of the proceedings, settlement discussions, or the availability of default judgment do not by themselves justify bypassing the Convention.

Under Article 15, the court may proceed where the document was transmitted by a Convention method, at least six months have elapsed, and no certificate has been received despite reasonable efforts to obtain one. Once valid service has occurred, permission to seek summary judgment may be granted even though the defendant has not filed an acknowledgment of service or defence.

The claimant sought summary judgment against six guarantors of unpaid banking facilities. Three guarantors had been validly served in India through the procedure under the Hague Convention. The remaining three had not initially been certified as served by the Indian Central Authority, although documents had been transmitted and local-law service had occurred.

The claimant also obtained an order permitting service of the summary judgment applications by alternative means. The court considered whether that order should stand, whether service had been valid, whether Article 15 permitted judgment to proceed, and whether permission should be granted to apply for summary judgment.

1. First summary judgment applications. The claim forms had been validly served on the fifth, sixth and seventh defendants under the Hague Convention. The period for acknowledging service had expired. Permission to apply for summary judgment was granted under CPR 24.4, since the defendants had had an opportunity to engage with the proceedings and the English court had jurisdiction.
2. The summary judgment application itself was a judicial document requiring service in accordance with the Convention. The order for alternative service under CPR Part 6.15 should not have been made. The contractual agreement to service through a UK agent, attempts to bring the documents to the defendants’ attention, the expiry of the jurisdiction period, the availability of default judgment, settlement discussions and alleged evasion did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The order was set aside and the purported service was invalid.
3. Second summary judgment applications. Although service through the Indian Central Authority had not been certified for the third, fourth and eighth defendants, the requirements of Article 15 were satisfied. The documents had been transmitted by a Convention method, more than six months had elapsed, and reasonable efforts had been made to obtain a certificate without success. The court was therefore entitled to conclude that the claim forms had been validly served.
4. Permission to apply for summary judgment against those defendants was granted. The applications remained to be served, either under the Hague Convention or through the contractual process agent. The claimant was required to draw up an order reflecting the decision.