Arros Invest Ltd v Nishanov

Arros Invest Ltd v Nishanov

Claimant failed to establish by expert evidence that the APC applied to the proceedings; therefore, CPC applied, requiring personal service, which was not effected. Service was not validly effected within the validity period of the claim form, and the appeal must fail.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Arros Invest Limited; Respondent/first Defendant: Rafik Nishanov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Foreign Law, Jurisdiction, Extension of Time
Civil Procedure Service of Process Foreign Law Jurisdiction Extension of Time

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arros Invest Limited

Appellant/claimant

Rafik Nishanov

Respondent/first Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form was validly effected under Russian law
  2. 2 Whether the Arbitrazh Procedural Code (APC) or Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applied to service
  3. 3 Whether service at registered address and by registered post was sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to establish by expert evidence that the APC applied to the proceedings; therefore, CPC applied, requiring personal service, which was not effected. Service was not validly effected within the validity period of the claim form, and the appeal must fail.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No extension of time for service granted