Practice

Service out of jurisdiction without leave - claim form not bearing statement of basis of entitlement to serve out of jurisdiction - service validTrustor AB v Barclays Bank Plc (F Van Landschot (Luxembourg) SA, pt 20 defendant): ChD (Rimer J): 24 October 2000

The claimant brought an action against the defendant, alleging failure to notify it that its money was being misappropriated.

The defendant made a claim against the pt 20 defendant under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

The pt 20 defendant applied for summary dismissal of the claim against it on the grounds, among other things, that the pt 20 claim form had not been properly served in accordance with CPR r.6.19(3) since it did not include a statement of the grounds on which the claimant was entitled to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction.

The court services had failed to notice the error and had failed to mark the claim form 'not for service out of the jurisdiction'.

Robin Potts QC and Andrew Onslow (instructed by DLA) for the defendant.

Christopher Carr QC and Graeme Halkerston (instructed by Stephenson Harwood) for the pt 20 defendant.

Held, refusing the application, that, although CPR r.6.19(3) was a mandatory provision, failure to include the statement it required was at the most an irregularity and did not justify the court in saying that there had been no service at all; and that the pt 20 claim form had been validly served.