BNP Paribas SA v OJSC "Russian Machines" & Ors

BNP Paribas SA v OJSC "Russian Machines" & Ors

Good reason exists to make a retrospective declaration of good service under CPR 6.15(2) because the claim form was brought to the attention of the Second Defendant, the proceedings require expedition, and delay in service under the Hague Convention would prejudice the trial. The court's power must be exercised cautiously, but the facts justify the order.

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 Application / Application for Retrospective Validation of Service Under CPR 6.15(2)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Alternative Service, Hague Convention, Jurisdiction, Anti Suit Injunction
Civil Procedure International Civil Litigation Arbitration Service of Process Alternative Service Hague Convention Jurisdiction Anti Suit Injunction

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BNP Paribas SA

Claimant

OJSC Russian Machines

First Defendant

JSC Management Company Ingosstrakh-Investments

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial 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 make a retrospective declaration of service
  3. 3 Whether delay in service under the Hague Convention justifies alternative service

Ratio Decidendi

Good reason exists to make a retrospective declaration of good service under CPR 6.15(2) because the claim form was brought to the attention of the Second Defendant, the proceedings require expedition, and delay in service under the Hague Convention would prejudice the trial. The court's power must be exercised cautiously, but the facts justify the order.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Declaration that proceedings have been validly served on the Second Defendant under CPR 6.15(2)
  • Extension of time granted to challenge ex parte alternative service orders of 13 December 2011 and 1 March 2012