Alliance Automotive Procurement Limited v Auto Zatoka Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia

Errors in a response pack do not necessarily invalidate service of proceedings. Where the claim form and particulars of claim have been served by an authorised method, and the defendant understands the claim, defects in accompanying response documents generally concern the conduct of the proceedings rather than service itself.

A strike-out for procedural non-compliance requires a proportionality assessment. Technical errors which are neither serious nor significant, cause no prejudice and do not disrupt the litigation will not justify striking out the claim or declining jurisdiction. Parties should not seek a windfall from an opponent’s minor procedural mistake.

The claimant sued a Polish company for payment under a supply agreement containing an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The proceedings were served in Poland through the Central Authority under the Hague Service Convention.

The response pack incorrectly stated that a defence was due within 28 days rather than 35 days after service of the particulars of claim, and that a jurisdiction application could be made within 21 days rather than 14 days after acknowledgment of service. The defendant applied to strike out the claim, or for declarations that service was ineffective or that the court lacked jurisdiction.

1. Service. The proceedings were validly served through an authorised method under the Hague Service Convention. Service is principally concerned with bringing the claim to the defendant’s attention. The process of responding to a claim is related to, but distinct from, service of the claim. The errors in the response pack therefore did not invalidate service.
2. The court declined to adopt a stricter approach merely because the claim was international. The defendant received the proceedings through the agreed Central Authority procedure and fully understood the claim and its nature.
3. Jurisdiction and strike-out. The exclusive jurisdiction clause meant that it was not properly arguable that the court lacked jurisdiction. Any question whether the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction because of the errors was a discretionary case-management question governed by the overriding objective and proportionality.
4. The errors breached paragraph 6.6 of Practice Direction 6B, but were technical errors of form rather than substance. They were neither serious nor significant. The defendant knew the correct deadlines before they expired, showed no prejudice, and obtained relief from sanction for its late jurisdiction application.
5. Applying the principles in Denton and the proportionality approach explained in Walsham Chalet Park, striking out the claim would be wholly disproportionate. If a default judgment had resulted from reliance on the incorrect deadline, the proportionate response would have been to set it aside and address costs, not to strike out the claim.
6. The application was dismissed. The court criticised the attempt to obtain a procedural windfall from a minor mistake and observed that the overriding objective would have been better served by identifying the errors and agreeing the correct period.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance decision on the defendant’s application.