Protec International Ltd v Stout

Protec International Ltd v Stout

The court found that the Second Defendant was actively seeking to avoid personal service, which constituted special circumstances justifying an order under CPR 6.15(2) validating the steps taken as good service, despite the Hague Service Convention. The proceedings came to the Second Defendant's attention within the validity period, and significant efforts were made to serve him. The alternative application under CPR 7.6(3) would have failed as not all reasonable steps were taken.

Parties
Claimant: Protec International Limited; Defendant: William Thomas Stout; Defendant: Edward Overbeck; Defendant: Protec Auto Care Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application under CPR 6.15(2) granted; steps taken to serve the Second Defendant validated as good service.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Hague Service Convention, Alternative Service, Extension of Time for Service
Civil Procedure Service of Process Hague Service Convention Alternative Service Extension of Time for 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Protec International Limited

Claimant

William Thomas Stout

Defendant

Edward Overbeck

Defendant

Protec Auto Care Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether steps taken to serve the Amended Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on the Second Defendant constituted good service under CPR 6.15(2) in a Hague Convention case
  2. 2 Whether time for service should be extended under CPR 7.6(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second Defendant was actively seeking to avoid personal service, which constituted special circumstances justifying an order under CPR 6.15(2) validating the steps taken as good service, despite the Hague Service Convention. The proceedings came to the Second Defendant's attention within the validity period, and significant efforts were made to serve him. The alternative application under CPR 7.6(3) would have failed as not all reasonable steps were taken.

Court Disposition

Application under CPR 6.15(2) granted; steps taken to serve the Second Defendant validated as good service.

Orders

  • Steps taken to effect service of the Amended Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on 23/02/17 on the Second Defendant constitute good service under CPR 6.15(2).
  • Court to hear counsel on the form of order and consequential issues, including costs.