The English High Court recently ruled in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Columbia Pictures Corp Ltd v Wanda Kids Cultural Development Co., Ltd [2024] EWHC 2921 (Comm)</span> that hand-delivering a claim form and particulars of claim to a company’s registered office in Hong Kong constituted valid service out of the jurisdiction under CPR r.6.40(3), in accordance with Hong Kong law.
In this case, the claimant (Columbia Pictures) sought to confirm that the claim form, particulars of claim and associated documents had been validly served under CPR r.6.40(3). The underlying claim concerned an option agreement between the parties. When the defendant's solicitors confirmed that they were not instructed to accept service, the claimant proceeded to serve the documents by having a clerk from its Hong Kong office deliver them by hand to the defendant's registered office in Hong Kong.
While both parties agreed that the claimant was permitted to serve the documents out of the jurisdiction under CPR r.6.33(2B)(b), the defendant disputed the method of service. The defendant argued that the service was invalid as it did not comply with the Hague Service Convention 1965 and was not permissible under Hong Kong law. The claimant contended that leaving foreign process at a company’s registered office was both permitted under both regimes.
The court rejected the defendant’s application and ruled that the service was valid.
The Hague Service Convention applied in this case and service had to comply with its provisions. The Convention sets out the process for transmitting judicial and extrajudicial documents from one contracting state to another, with the primary channel being the central authority of the requested state. However, Article 10 of the Convention allows for direct service through mail (Article 10(a)) or via judicial officers or other competent persons (Article 10(b) and (c)), as long as the requested country does not object.
In this case, Hong Kong did not object to service by mail under Article 10(a), but for service through judicial officers or competent persons (Articles 10(b) and (c)), Hong Kong required documents to be transmitted through official channels, such as through the central authority. The Court assessed whether the claimant’s chosen method of service was permitted under Hong Kong law, which would make service valid under CPR r.6.40(3).
Under Hong Kong's Rules of the High Court Ord.69, the procedure for serving foreign process is set out. However, Ord.69 does not prescribe mandatory or exclusive rules for foreign process service; it only applies when a specific request for service is made to the registrar. The Court found that Hong Kong's Companies Ordinance s.827 permitted alternative methods of service, such as leaving documents at a company's registered office.
Moreover, Hong Kong’s responses to the Hague Service Convention questionnaires confirmed that it had no objection to service by solicitors or private agents, further supporting the view that leaving documents at the registered office was a permissible method of service under Hong Kong law.
The court’s decision in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Columbia Pictures Corp Ltd v Wanda Kids Cultural Development Co., Ltd</span> clarifies that hand-delivery of foreign process to a company’s registered office in Hong Kong is a valid method of service under both Hong Kong law and the Hague Service Convention. This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the interplay between international conventions and local laws in cross-border disputes and affirms the potential flexibility of service methods available to claimants when serving documents out of the jurisdiction.
