Maritime Developments Limited v Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited

Under Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention, the court may enter judgment where the document was transmitted by a Convention method, an adequate period of at least six months has elapsed, and no certificate has been received despite every reasonable effort to obtain it.

The provision does not require proof that the defendant evaded service in bad faith. Where its conditions are satisfied, English law treats service as assumed on the basis of transmission and lapse of time. Default judgment may then be entered if the requirements of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 12.3 are met.

Maritime Developments Limited claimed £781,611 from Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited under an equipment-rental agreement after the equipment was lost. The agreement contained an exclusive English jurisdiction clause.

The claim form was transmitted through the Hague Service Convention procedure to India, but no certificate of service was obtained despite repeated efforts. An earlier default judgment had been set aside because service may not have complied with Indian law. The claimant applied again for default judgment under CPR 12.3, alternatively seeking permission for alternative service and an extension of time.

The central issues were whether Article 15(2) was satisfied, whether bad-faith evasion was required, and whether judgment could be entered without notice.

1. Default judgment. The claimant’s application under CPR 12.3 succeeded. The claim form and particulars of claim had been properly transmitted for the purposes of Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention, the relevant period had elapsed, and no certificate had been received despite every reasonable effort. Judgment was entered for £781,611.
2. Transmission. Transmission to the foreign process section of the High Court, as the sending authority, was sufficient. It was unnecessary to establish every later stage of transmission through the Indian Central Authority or local court.
3. Elapsed time and reasonable efforts. More than 15 months had elapsed from transmission to the process service, and more than 12 months from transmission to the Indian Department of Legal Affairs. That was sufficient under Article 15(2)(b). Monthly enquiries, correspondence, telephone calls and five personal visits to the Indian authority readily satisfied Article 15(2)(c).
4. No bad-faith requirement. Article 15(2), construed according to its natural language, contains no requirement that the defendant evaded service in bad faith. The HCCH Handbook’s suggested restriction to such cases did not state the English legal test.
5. Effect of Article 15(2). Once its conditions were met, service was assumed on the basis of transmission and lapse of time. Any substantive defence could be raised through an application to set aside under CPR 13.3.
6. Procedure and interest. CPR r 12.12(5)(a) permitted the application without notice because the contract contained an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, the defendant had not acknowledged service, and no CPR provision required notice. Interest was awarded under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 at 3% above Bank of England base rate until judgment, thereafter at 8%. The alternative application was unnecessary. Costs were reserved for determination on paper.