In English cases which have a foreign element, the service of process can sometimes be problematic and may result in delays.

One method of serving an English process in France is often neglected.The central rule of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 is that a person must be sued where he or she is domiciled.

A person domiciled in France must, in general, be sued there.

Similarly, a person based in France, but domiciled in a country which is a party to the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 or the parallel Lugano Convention of 1988, must usually be sued where he or she is domiciled.

(The parties to the Brussels Convention are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

The parties to the Lugano Convention are France, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.) In the following cases, however, it is possible to sue in England a defendant who is resident in France.-- The defendant may be resident in France but not domiciled in a state which is a party to the Brussels or Lugano Conventions.

In such a case, the writ may be served out of the jurisdiction with the leave of the court in the circumstances set out in ord 11, r.1(1).-- In a small number of cases the conventions do not apply.

These are listed in art 1 of each convention.

In such cases, ord 11, r.1(1) again applies.-- The conventions lay down a number of situations in which a person domiciled in another convention state may be sued in England.

The most significant exceptions to the general rule are the following.-- Where the parties have agreed that the English courts are to have jurisdiction (art 17 of the Brussels Convention).

The agreement must be either 'in writing or evidenced in writing, or...in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves or...in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are, or ought to have been aware, and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned'.-- In matters relating to a contract, if England was the place of performance of the obligation in question (art 5).-- In matters relating to tort, if England was the place where the harmful event occurred (art 5).-- If the defendant is a co-defendant, and another defendant is domiciled in England (art 6).In such cases, ord 11, r.1(2) permits service on a defendant domiciled in France without leave, provided that no proceedings between the parties concerning the same cause of action are pending in the courts of any convention territory.

In issuing such a writ, the following should be borne in mind.

First, the writ must be endorsed with the words: 'The court has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to hear and determine this claim and no proceedings involving the same cause of action are pending between the parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland or another convention territory,' (ord 6, r.7(1)(b)).Secondly, whether service is effected with leave or whether the writ may be served in France without leave by virtue of the conventions, the time for acknowledgement of service must be amended to 21 days.

The correct address of the defendant should, of course, be carefully checked.

If the defendant is a corporation, care should be taken to ensure that the correct registered office is stated on the writ.

A search may be made at the Registre du Commerce in Paris, the French equivalent of Companies House.Having issued the writ, the next step is to serve it on the defendant in France.

The general rule on service outside the jurisdiction is contained in ord 11, r.5, which provides that a writ may be served out of the jurisdiction so long as it is served in accordance with the law of the country where the defendant is to be served.

There are four methods of service in France, all of which are governed by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters 1965.Those methods are: (a) through the British Consulate: (b) through the French judicial authority; (c) through the central authority designated under the Hague Convention, ie the French Ministry of Justice; or (d) through an agent appointed in France by the plaintiff.With methods (a), (b) and (c), it is necessary to lodge with the Foreign Process Office at room E217 at the High Court in the Strand, the following documents:-- a request for service in the selected manner;-- a copy of the writ or originating summons, one additional copy for each defendant to be served;-- French translations of the writ, unless service is to be through the British Consulate, in which case these must be certified translations; and-- a form of acknowledgement of service with directions and notes, and a French translation.The documents are then sealed by the court and a senior master sends them to the under-secretary of state at the Foreign Office, who directs the documents to the nationality and treaty claims department.

They should be forwarded to the Minist-re de la Justice (Bureau de l'Entre-aide), 13 Place Vend-me, 75042 Paris Cedex 01.

If method (a) is preferred, then the documents are sent by the Foreign Office direct to the British Consulate authority nearest to the defendant's address.

Method (a) is of limited use because French law only permits service by diplomatic channels if the person being served is a British national.In methods (b) and (c), the French authorities, upon receipt of the documents, arrange for service to be effected by a police officer from the police station nearest to the defendant's address.

The police officer prepares a signification d'acte, the equivalent of an affidavit of service, stating the date of service, the name of the person upon whom they were served and which documents were served upon them.

The latter document is returned through the official channels to the master's secretary, who will send to the plaintiff a certificate of service and a note of the expenses incurred in effecting service.Should method (a) be chosen, the consul or pro-consul personally serves the process on the defendant and drafts a certificate of service.

This procedure is in some ways more reliable because British consuls are familiar with French and English requirements and the certificate of service is received in the approved form.

In practice, however, the British Consulate in Paris rarely receives documents from England for service in France.The major disadvantage of the official methods is that delay can occur in service because of the slow-moving administrative functions relating to documents passed to the French Foreign Ministry from the Foreign Office, or the fact that consular staff are often busy and may be unable to effect prompt service.

The Rules of the Supreme Court (para 11/6/3) suggest that such delays can be avoided if, when requesting service through official channels, the plaintiff asks that the pr ocess should be served through the British consul or by the local judicial authorities, as may be most convenient.

However, service through the consulate may not be permitted.The fourth method of service is probably the simplest and least expensive.

Whilst the Hague Convention makes provision for service through official channels, at the time the French government ratified the convention it also recognised the possibility of service of foreign process in accordance with the internal domestic procedure for serving process issued within its own jurisdiction.

Ord 11, r.5(3) also recognises this method of service as being valid.

Art 10(c) of the Hague Convention states that 'provided the state of destination does not object, the present convention shall not interfere with (c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the state of destination'.Therefore, service can be made in the normal way permitted under French domestic law, namely through a huissier or court bailiff by virtue of arts 648 to 683 of the new code of civil procedure.

The agent selected in France to effect service on behalf of the plaintiff will appoint a huissier in the departement in which the defendant resides to serve the following documents:-- the writ/originating summons together with a French translation, which need not be certified;-- the statement of claim together with a French translation;-- the acknowledgement of service form with directions and notes for guidance, together with a French translation.The huissier then serves the documents personally on the defendant or any person willing to accept service on the defendant's behalf.

Following service, the huissier prepares a signification d'acte, which is explained above.

An English translation of that document should then be made by a qualified translator who should swear an affidavit verifying the translation and exhibiting the French affidavit of service and translations to it.

These documents are filed at the High Court as proof of service.

The whole operation can be undertaken in a matter of days, as compared with the alternative, official methods of service which can take up to six months.Finally, it should be borne in mind that, when a writ is to be served in France with leave of the English court, the period of validity is six months.

If, however, the writ is to be served without leave by virtue of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, the period of validity is the same as if it were served within the jurisdiction, namely four months.

Applications to extend the life of the writ can be made to the court.

The validity of the writ may have to be extended of necessity because service through official channels can be seriously delayed, often beyond the control of the party wishing to serve in France, and the process of applying to extend can be both time-consuming and costly.

This is a good reason in itself for serving through a locally appointed agent.When considering which method to use, it is best to remember that the Hague Convention 1965 is permissive rather than mandatory.

Service through a huissier appointed by a local agent in France, if possible, is always to be preferred if economy and speed are priorities.