Greig William Alexander Mitchell & Anor (joint liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber & Ors

Where a defendant is resident in a state party to the Hague Service Convention that has not objected to Article 10(a), alternative service requires good reason; an exceptional-circumstances threshold does not apply. The inquiry is fact-sensitive and discretionary. Good reason may be established cumulatively by the enforcement context, the need for expedition, unexplained failure to receive documents at the defendant’s address, and a solicitor’s refusal to accept service despite being fully engaged. The court should assess whether the proposed method is likely to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention more effectively.

The underlying money judgment had been set aside by the Court of Appeal but reinstated by the Supreme Court in Mitchell v Al Jaber [2025] UKSC 43. The claimants, as joint liquidators, then issued a Part 8 claim for possession and sale of property charged to secure the judgment debt.

A pre-action letter sent to the First Defendant’s Paris address was not collected. His solicitors, although acting for him in the proceedings, refused authority to accept service. Deputy Master Linwood therefore authorised service out of the jurisdiction by email to those solicitors. The First Defendant applied to set aside that order, arguing that exceptional circumstances were required and that the alternative method was unjustified. The central issue was whether there was good reason to authorise alternative service.

The First Defendant’s application was dismissed and the Alternative Service Order remained in force.

1. Applicable test. Because France had not objected to Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, the applicable question was whether there was good reason to authorise alternative service. Exceptional circumstances were not required. The judge took into account the principles summarised by Foxton J in M v N [2021] EWHC 360 (Comm), at [8] and [9].
2. Good reason. The reasons were cumulative. The claim was, in substance, enforcement of a final judgment, and should proceed expeditiously. The unexplained failure to collect the pre-action letter created a real possibility that ordinary service might be delayed or avoided. The solicitors’ refusal to accept service, despite being fully engaged in the proceedings, supported the same inference. Alternatively, if the delivery failure resulted from a genuine problem, there was a real risk that Convention service would fail again. Email service through the solicitors was therefore more likely to bring the proceedings to the First Defendant’s attention.
3. Other matters. The Second Defendant’s possible appeal and stay application had no relevance to service on the First Defendant. If the full and frank disclosure objection remained maintained, it also failed: the evidence identified the correct legal test and adequately drew attention to the solicitors’ correspondence.
4. Disposition. The application to set aside the Alternative Service Order was dismissed.

The underlying judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal and reinstated by the Supreme Court on 24 November 2025 in Mitchell v Al Jaber [2025] UKSC 43 . The present decision was a first-instance determination of the application to set aside the Alternative Service Order.