Shiblaq v Sadikoglu [2004] EWHC 1890 (Comm) (30 July 2004)

Shiblaq v Sadikoglu [2004] EWHC 1890 (Comm) (30 July 2004)

Service on the defendant in Turkey was not valid for foreign proceedings under Turkish law or the Hague Convention, as Turkey had objected to the relevant methods under Article 10. CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 cannot be used to retrospectively validate or dispense with service in a manner inconsistent with international conventions. The default judgment must be set aside under CPR 13.2.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1890 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Basil Shiblaq; Defendant: Kahraman Sadikoglu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Related Applications Under CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9
Outcome
Judgment in default set aside; claimant's applications under CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 refused.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Default Judgment, Hague Convention, Retrospective Validation of Service, Dispensing With Service
Civil Procedure Private International Law Service of Process Default Judgment Hague Convention Retrospective Validation of Service Dispensing With 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basil Shiblaq

Claimant

Kahraman Sadikoglu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Related Applications Under CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service effected on the defendant in Turkey was valid for the purposes of CPR 12.3(1) and entitled the claimant to default judgment under CPR 12
  2. 2 Whether the court should retrospectively validate or dispense with service under CPR 3.10 or CPR 6.9

Ratio Decidendi

Service on the defendant in Turkey was not valid for foreign proceedings under Turkish law or the Hague Convention, as Turkey had objected to the relevant methods under Article 10. CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 cannot be used to retrospectively validate or dispense with service in a manner inconsistent with international conventions. The default judgment must be set aside under CPR 13.2.

Court Disposition

Judgment in default set aside; claimant's applications under CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 refused.

Orders

  • Default judgment set aside under CPR 13.2
  • Claimant's applications under CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 refused