Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A.S. & Ors

Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A.S. & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to refuse retrospective alternative service or to dispense with service, as there was no good reason to do so, especially given the expiry of the limitation period, the Hague Convention requirements, and Soc. Gen.'s culpable delay and warehousing of proceedings. Negligent legal advice is not always a bad reason but was not a good reason here. The judge's minor error in principle did not vitiate his overall evaluative judgment. However, the judge erred in ordering an inquiry into damages under the cross-undertaking, given the excessive delay by the defendants in seeking such an inquiry.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Société Générale; Defendant/respondent: Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A. S.; Defendant/respondent: Granat Madencilik ve Ticaret A. S. (formerly Goldas Kiymetli Madenler Ticareti A. S); Defendant/respondent: Jakana Tekstil Konfeksiyon Uretim ve Ticaret A. S. (formerly Meydan Doviz Kiymetli Maden Ticaret A. S); Defendant/respondent: Goldas LLC; Defendant/respondent: Goldart Holding A. S.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judge's refusal to order alternative service and dismissal of claim upheld; order for inquiry into damages discharged.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Alternative Service, Hague Convention, Limitation Periods, Freezing Injunctions, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure International Civil Litigation Service of Process Alternative Service Hague Convention Limitation Periods Freezing Injunctions Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Société Générale

Claimant/appellant

Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A. S.

Defendant/respondent

Granat Madencilik ve Ticaret A. S. (formerly Goldas Kiymetli Madenler Ticareti A. S)

Defendant/respondent

Jakana Tekstil Konfeksiyon Uretim ve Ticaret A. S. (formerly Meydan Doviz Kiymetli Maden Ticaret A. S)

Defendant/respondent

Goldas LLC

Defendant/respondent

Goldart Holding A. S.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order alternative service or dispense with service under CPR 6.15/6.16 where service was not effected in accordance with the Hague Convention and limitation had expired.
  2. 2 Whether negligent legal advice can constitute a good reason for alternative service.
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in ordering an inquiry into damages under the cross-undertaking in the freezing orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to refuse retrospective alternative service or to dispense with service, as there was no good reason to do so, especially given the expiry of the limitation period, the Hague Convention requirements, and Soc. Gen.'s culpable delay and warehousing of proceedings. Negligent legal advice is not always a bad reason but was not a good reason here. The judge's minor error in principle did not vitiate his overall evaluative judgment. However, the judge erred in ordering an inquiry into damages under the cross-undertaking, given the excessive delay by the defendants in seeking such an inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judge's refusal to order alternative service and dismissal of claim upheld; order for inquiry into damages discharged.

Orders

  • Refusal to order alternative service or dispense with service under CPR 6.15/6.16 upheld.
  • Dismissal of Soc. Gen.'s claims upheld.