Rana Al-Aggad v Talal Al-Aggad & Ors

A sealed claim form lacking the claimant’s address is not automatically incapable of valid service. Where the rules impose no express sanction for that omission, the defect may be remedied under CPR 3.10, subject to the court’s discretion.

A defendant may waive a service objection by election or estoppel. An unequivocal acceptance of service, followed by reliance and expenditure on another jurisdictional challenge, may prevent a later challenge.

For alternative service under CPR 6.15, the question is whether there is a good reason in all the circumstances. In a non-convention case, substantial delay through ordinary service, effective notification by the alternative method and the absence of prejudice may together establish good reason.

The claimant brought contractual and unlawful means conspiracy claims against her three siblings. The proceedings were issued in England, with the third defendant served personally and the first and second defendants served by email pursuant to an order permitting service out and alternative service.

The defendants challenged the validity of service. The third defendant argued that the claim form was invalid because it omitted the claimant’s address. The claimant sought dispensation from including that address. The first and second defendants sought to set aside the order for alternative service.

The court also considered whether the third defendant had waived any service objection and whether the applicable test for alternative service was satisfied where Saudi Arabia and Jordan were not parties to a service convention.

1. Dispensation and service. The claimant’s application to dispense with inclusion of her address was granted because disclosure created a credible risk to her personal safety. That issue was distinct from whether service had been valid when effected.
2. The omission of the claimant’s address did not invalidate service. Practice Direction 16 contained no express sanction applicable where the sealed claim form was released to the claimant for service. The omission was a procedural defect capable of cure under CPR 3.10. The practice direction was not a specific regime equivalent to CPR 7.6(3), and the principles of open justice did not require automatic invalidity.
3. Service on the third defendant was therefore valid. The court also exercised its discretion under CPR 3.10 to remedy the defect.
4. Waiver. Waiver may involve election between inconsistent rights or equitable estoppel. The third defendant knew that the claim form lacked an address and elected not to rely on that defect. Her jurisdiction application and supporting evidence expressly accepted service and challenged only the exercise, rather than the existence, of jurisdiction. After the parties had proceeded for more than a year on that basis and incurred substantial expense, it would be inequitable to permit her to resile from that representation.
5. Alternative service. Following Abela v Baadarani, the court must ask whether there was good reason to authorise alternative service. The same test applies under CPR 6.15(1) and (2), although actual notification is more directly relevant to retrospective validation.
6. There was good reason. Ordinary service through diplomatic channels in Saudi Arabia and Jordan was expected to take about a year; email service brought the proceedings effectively to the defendants’ attention; the alternative method was not contrary to local law; service on the third defendant was valid; parallel progress against all defendants was desirable; and the defendants had no pragmatic reason for insisting on another route. Delay alone may constitute good reason where rapid resolution accords with the overriding objective.
7. The applications challenging service and alternative service were dismissed. The February 2024 forum non conveniens application was to proceed in accordance with the agreed directions.