A intended to bring proceedings against B, a Lebanese national, in England for fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to a contract for the purchase of shares in an Italian company, G. A faced difficulties in serving the claim form on B in Lebanon as he could not be located there. However, there was reason to believe that B had become aware of the proceedings, as his lawyers in Lebanon had received an untranslated copy of the claim form. This degree of awareness of the impending English proceedings was not self-evidently sufficient to satisfy the CPR requirements for the service ex juris of a claim form. Nevertheless, the first instance court ruled that a good service was made, pursuant to CPR r.6.15(2).2 The Court of Appeal reversed that ruling. On A’s appeal to the Supreme Court, the key question was whether A’s earlier efforts, to serve proceedings on B, amounted to good service by an alternative method, as provided within the relevant CPR provisions.

Decision: Appeal allowed.

Held: In a case where the Hague Service Convention3 or a bilateral service treaty was immaterial to the facts, a party’s actions could be validated as amounting to good service, through a retrospective application of CPR, r.6.15(2). In this respect, while the defendant’s knowledge of the existence of a claim against him is not, without more, sufficient, it was nevertheless an important factor in deciding whether to validate the service retrospectively. In this case, and through his lawyers, the defendant had become aware of the allegations against him and had chosen not to disclose his main address. For these (and other) reasons, the Court of Appeal’s decision must be reversed.

Comment: (1) It had long been considered that the English court was able, in retrospect, to declare valid alternative service of proceedings within the jurisdiction. However, before this ruling, it was not entirely clear whether the same practice could be applied in relation