Galina Ivanovna Zhuravleva v Ioulia Fedikhanovna Kamalova

Service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction may be effected by a method permitted by the law of the country of service, subject to the restrictions in CPR r. 6.40. Service by post in Spain was valid where Spain had not objected to postal service under art. 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention and the evidence established compliance with Spanish law. Minor inaccuracies in an authorised address did not invalidate service where they caused no material deviation or confusion.

Alternatively, CPR r. 6.15(2) permits retrospective validation where there is good reason. The court should assess all the circumstances, including reasonable steps taken to serve, the defendant’s knowledge of the claim form and any prejudice caused by validation. Knowledge of the claim alone is not automatically sufficient.

The claimant sought an order requiring registration or vesting of two flats in her name, following a determination by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) that she was their sole beneficial owner. The defendant, resident in Spain, challenged the jurisdiction and validity of service, contending that translations were required, the method used was not permitted by Spanish law, the authorised address was not followed, and email service was ineffective.

The claimant relied on service by Burofax at two related Spanish addresses and, alternatively, sought retrospective validation under CPR r. 6.15(2). The court also considered limitation, abuse of process and a proposed civil restraint order.

1. Service validly effected. The court held that service by Burofax in Spain was permitted by CPR r. 6.40(3) and art. 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. Spain had not objected to postal service. The evidence established attempts at both relevant addresses, notices to collect the documents, and valid service under Spanish law. Service occurred on 4 November 2025.
2. Translations and address discrepancy. CPR r. 6.45 did not require translations where service was effected by post under r. 6.40(3), rather than under rr. 6.43 or 6.44. The defendant identified no Spanish-law requirement for translations. The minor difference between the address in the order and the address used for service was immaterial and, in any event, would have been waived.
3. Other objections. Any incorrect dates stated by the claimant’s solicitors could not invalidate otherwise valid service. The email-service objection was irrelevant because the claimant did not rely on email as the original method of service. The defendant’s challenge to the service agent’s independence was rejected.
4. Retrospective validation. In any event, the court ordered under CPR r. 6.15(2) that the steps taken to bring the claim form to the defendant’s attention constituted good service. Applying the approach in R. (on the application of the Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355, there was good reason: reasonable steps had been taken, the defendant knew the claim’s existence and contents by 10 April 2026, and validation caused no prejudice.
5. Ancillary matters. The limitation argument under s. 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 was rejected. The applications to strike out the claim or impose a civil restraint order lacked coherent legal support. The application for an extension of time for service was adjourned.

This was a first-instance decision. The court recorded that the claim followed proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which had determined that the claimant was the sole beneficial owner of the flats.