Cross-border service—issues with service

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Many of the common issues which arise when dealing with service in England and Wales also arise when considering those issues which may arise when seeking to serve documents in another jurisdiction, eg inability to serve the document in time, unable to serve the defendant in the manner stipulated in Part 6.

Service toolkit

The toolkit is a comprehensive, interactive resource designed to assist in identifying and navigating through to relevant content throughout the Lexis+® UK Dispute Resolution module. The toolkit enables you to view core content, ie Practice Notes, Checklists, Flowcharts. To help you navigate to the materials most relevant for the part of the service process you are interested in, the toolkit is divided into a series of tabs called 'phases' and 'sub-phases'. see: Serving the claim form—toolkit.

Difficulties with service

A claim form will only be valid for service if served within the relevant time frame provided for in either:

  1. •

    the rules within the CPR, or

  2. •

    by statutory time limits

For guidance, see Practice Note: Service of the claim form—time periods for service.

The key objective

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Court of Appeal—final anti-suit injunction varied to avoid Russian court penalty (UniCredit v RusChemAlliance)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ordered that a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be varied to remove the injunctive element but maintain a declaration that the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The applicant bank (UniCredit) would otherwise have incurred a significant penalty from the Russian court. The original ASI had prevented the respondent (RCA) (who had breached the Paris-seated arbitration clause) from bringing proceedings in Russia. The court confirmed that CPR 3.1 (the court’s general powers of management) and CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) provide the court with powers to vary or revoke an ASI, if the commercial situation allows. There is no material distinction between where the order is an interim vs a final order and a pragmatic approach will be afforded when considering factors related to the application, namely (i) if the applicant has been coerced, (ii) English public policy and (iii) the impact if the application is not granted. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Transactions at an undervalue, sham litigation and settlements, Marex tort, abuse of process (Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (in liquidation) v Marlborough Developments Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This judgment concerned two sets of legal proceedings connected to allegations of serious dishonesty, fraudulent activity and abusive litigation tactics by various parties to obstruct the enforcement of a judgment. Dr Smith and Mr Ruhan had been long-term adversaries in prolonged and bitter litigation against each other. However, they formed the ‘unholiest of unholy alliances’ in colluding in a scheme to frustrate Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd’s (HPII’s) efforts to enforce a judgment obtained against Mr Ruhan for £102.26m. The scheme included companies controlled by Dr Smith fabricating litigation against Mr Ruhan leading to a default judgment for £850m, a fabricated settlement agreement and the transfer of assets to entities controlled by Dr Smith. The court found that the transactions were transactions at undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), set aside the fraudulent default judgment, struck out the sham proceedings and issued injunctions to protect HPII’s judgment rights against further tortious interference. Written by Justin Perring, barrister, New Square Chambers.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—20 February 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the publication of the new model forms under CPR, the Supreme Court decision in Nasir v Zavarco Plc (doctrine of merger), the Court of Appeal decision in EE Ltd v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd (exclusions of liability) and a costs decision in Reeves v Frain (invalid damages based agreements); details of our most recently published content; dates for your diary and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

The Supreme Court holds that the doctrine of merger does not extend to declaratory judgments (Nasir v Zavarco Plc)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of merger is confined to ‘coercive judgments’ and does not extend to declaratory judgments. Jack Mitchell of Old Square Chambers comments on the implications of the judgment.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable law

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable lawThis Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, commonly known as Rome I, to circumstances in which the parties have not chosen the applicable law. It considers the law
Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principles

Forum non conveniens—principlesThis Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable law

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable law

Rome I—parties fail to choose the applicable lawThis Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, commonly known as Rome I, to circumstances in which the parties have not chosen the applicable law. It considers the law