BNP Paribas SA v OJSC "Russian Machines" & Ors [2012] EWHC 1023 (Comm) (20 April 2012)

BNP Paribas SA v OJSC "Russian Machines" & Ors [2012] EWHC 1023 (Comm) (20 April 2012)

Good reason exists for retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2) due to the risk of prejudice to the timely trial and arbitration proceedings caused by delay in service via the Hague Convention; the claim form was brought to the attention of the Second Defendant after Bryan Cave's instruction.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1023 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BNP Paribas SA; First Defendant: OJSC 'Russian Machines'; Second Defendant: JSC Management Company 'Ingosstrakh-Investments'
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Retrospective Validation of Service Under CPR 6.15(2)
Outcome
Application granted; retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2)
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Alternative Service, Hague Convention, Anti Suit Injunction, Arbitration Proceedings
Civil Procedure International Arbitration Service of Process Alternative Service Hague Convention Anti Suit Injunction Arbitration Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BNP Paribas SA

Claimant

OJSC 'Russian Machines'

First Defendant

JSC Management Company 'Ingosstrakh-Investments'

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Retrospective Validation of Service Under CPR 6.15(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether steps taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the Second Defendant constitute good service under CPR 6.15(2)
  2. 2 Whether there is good reason to retrospectively validate service not authorised by English court order or recognised by Russian law

Ratio Decidendi

Good reason exists for retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2) due to the risk of prejudice to the timely trial and arbitration proceedings caused by delay in service via the Hague Convention; the claim form was brought to the attention of the Second Defendant after Bryan Cave's instruction.

Court Disposition

Application granted; retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2)

Orders

  • Order that steps taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the Second Defendant via Bryan Cave constitute good service under CPR 6.15(2)
  • Extension of time granted for Second Defendant to challenge alternative service orders of 13 December 2011 and 1 March 2012