Asia Pacific (HK) Ltd. & Ors v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania) [2005] EWHC 2443 (Comm) (07 November 2005)

Asia Pacific (HK) Ltd. & Ors v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania) [2005] EWHC 2443 (Comm) (07 November 2005)

The dispatch of the fax of 21 March 2005, enclosing the claim form, constituted valid service under the Civil Procedure Rules because it was delivered by a permitted method to the defendant's solicitors, who had indicated willingness to accept service, and there was no indication that the form was sent for information only. Procedural irregularities did not negate the substance of service.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2443 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: Asia Pacific (HK) Limited & Others; First Defendant: Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd; Second Defendant: Owners of the MV 'Hanjin Pennsylvania'
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim Regarding Service of Claim Form and Limitation Period / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Declaration granted that the claim form was served within the time prescribed by CPR 7.5.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Limitation Periods, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Dispensing With Service, Extension of Time for Service
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service of Claim Form Limitation Periods Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Dispensing With Service Extension of Time for Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asia Pacific (HK) Limited & Others

Claimants

Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd

First Defendant

Owners of the MV 'Hanjin Pennsylvania'

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim Regarding Service of Claim Form and Limitation Period / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim form was validly served within the time prescribed by CPR 7.5
  2. 2 Whether time for service should be extended under CPR 7.6
  3. 3 Whether the court should dispense with service under CPR 6.9

Ratio Decidendi

The dispatch of the fax of 21 March 2005, enclosing the claim form, constituted valid service under the Civil Procedure Rules because it was delivered by a permitted method to the defendant's solicitors, who had indicated willingness to accept service, and there was no indication that the form was sent for information only. Procedural irregularities did not negate the substance of service.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that the claim form was served within the time prescribed by CPR 7.5.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claim form dated 10 February 2005 was served on Hanjin on 21 March 2005 within the time prescribed by CPR 7.5.