Service on an Overseas Defendant Without a Jurisdiction Clause
Halvard Marine AS, a Norwegian ship-equipment supplier, contracted with Dunmore Trading LLC, a company incorporated in a Gulf state, for the supply of deck cranes. The contract was governed by the law of the forum and contained no jurisdiction or service clause. The cranes were shipped to, installed and commissioned at Halvard's terminal inside the forum; the control software was written in the forum; and the alleged losses (about $2.1m in remedial costs) were incurred there. Dunmore has no office, asset or registration in the forum. Its distributor, Northkey Ltd, is based there but has no authority to accept service. After negotiations broke down, Halvard's solicitor emailed the sealed claim form and statement of claim to Dunmore's chief executive at the address used throughout the parties' correspondence, and also posted a copy to Dunmore's registered office. Dunmore's CEO replied acknowledging receipt. Dunmore has now applied to set aside service and to dispute jurisdiction. Halvard wants to enter default judgment within the week.
1. Was service validly effected on Dunmore? Analyse each of the three methods used.
Read the worked answer
Service on Northkey. An agent can accept service only if authorised, either expressly or by implication from a course of dealing. A distributor is not a service agent merely because it sells the defendant's products. Unless the contract or a later exchange gave Northkey that authority, service on it is ineffective.
Service by email. In most systems email service is valid only if the party has agreed in writing to accept it, or the court has made an order permitting it, or a rule expressly provides for it (commonly between represented parties). Nothing in this contract authorises email service. The CEO's acknowledgement of receipt proves knowledge, not consent, and does not retrospectively convert an irregular step into good service. That said, actual knowledge plus an ability to respond within time is exactly the situation in which courts are willing to make a retrospective validation order or an order for substituted service, because the purpose of service - notice - has been achieved.
Post to the registered office. This is the strongest method, but if the destination state is a party to a service convention (for example the Hague Service Convention) and has objected to postal channels, posting the documents is not valid service: the documents must go through the central authority or another permitted channel. That route takes months and produces a translation requirement, so it should have been started early.
Conclusion: service is irregular and Dunmore's application has real prospects. Halvard should not defend the indefensible; it should apply at once for an order validating the steps already taken or, in the alternative, permitting substituted service on the CEO's address, supported by evidence of the CEO's actual receipt and engagement.
2. If service can be regularised, will the court permit Halvard to serve out of the jurisdiction and assume jurisdiction over Dunmore?
Read the worked answer
Three questions, in order.
1. Is there a jurisdictional gateway? Halvard must bring the claim within a specific gateway in the rules. Realistic candidates here: a claim in respect of a contract governed by the law of the forum; a claim for breach of a contract made within the jurisdiction or by or through an agent trading there; and a claim in tort where the damage was sustained, or the tortious act resulted in damage, within the jurisdiction. The installation and commissioning at Halvard's terminal, the software written locally and the remedial costs incurred there all point to damage sustained in the forum. The claim is in substance contractual, and the governing law is forum law.
2. Is there a good arguable case? Not a trial on the merits, but the court needs to see a case with a much better argument than merely arguable, supported by evidence - the contract, the commissioning records, the defect reports and the costings.
3. Forum conveniens. Even if the gateways are satisfied, the court will refuse permission if another forum is clearly more appropriate in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice. Dunmore will argue that its own state is the natural forum: its witnesses, its internal records, its sub-suppliers. Halvard answers that the site, the commissioning team, the software developers, the loss and the governing law are all in the forum, and that Dunmore is a trading company with no real base of operations to point to. Delay for translation and convention service, and the availability of enforcement, also count. On balance the forum is likely to retain the case, but only on a properly evidenced application made promptly and with full and frank disclosure.
3. Should Halvard enter default judgment this week? Advise on the risks.
Read the worked answer
No. The application is premature and would probably damage Halvard's position.
The service point is unresolved. Default judgment presupposes valid service and an expired period for acknowledgement or defence. If service was defective, a default judgment entered on it is irregular, and the defendant is entitled to have it set aside almost as of right, usually with costs. Where permission to serve out is required, the rules commonly require the court's permission before judgment in default can be entered at all.
The jurisdictional challenge is pending. Entering judgment while a challenge to service and jurisdiction is live looks like an attempt to steal a march, and courts dislike it. It also risks the argument that Halvard is treating the proceedings as effective while denying the need to serve properly.
Enforcement risk. A default judgment obtained without proper service is exactly the kind of order that foreign courts refuse to recognise under enforcement conventions, because the defendant was not served in sufficient time and in a manner enabling it to defend. Halvard would then have spent its costs twice over for an unenforceable piece of paper.
What to do instead: (a) apply to validate service retrospectively or for substituted service on the CEO's email address, with evidence of the correspondence; (b) apply for permission to serve out with the supporting gateway and forum evidence; (c) give an undertaking not to enter default judgment without the court's permission or without notice; (d) consider whether Dunmore, by applying to set aside service, has done anything amounting to submission - applying to dispute service or jurisdiction is expressly protective and is not submission, but taking a step on the merits would be.