Singapore Court Clarifies The Law Relating To Service Of Process On Foreign Parties
The Singapore High Court set out in detail the various methods available to a plaintiff for foreign service...
In a comprehensive judgment, Steven Chong J also took the opportunity to definitively clarify the position in relation to foreign service of process, and his judgment in Humpuss leaves the state of the law in no doubt: not only does Singapore permit service overseas through private means, private service is the “default” position. The judgment also confirms that the Court has discretion to cure invalid service in limited circumstances.
The High Court set out in detail the various methods available to a plaintiff for foreign service (depending on where the defendant is domiciled), the circumstances in which service will be valid or invalid, and when it might be appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to cure invalid service.
Chong J clarified that service of process on foreign parties is not confined to the methods prescribed under O11 r4(2) of the Rules.
Chong J took the opportunity to comprehensively restate the law on service outside jurisdiction, paying particular attention to the manner of service. In summary:
The Importance Of Proper Service
The validity of service falls to be determined by reference to Singapore law (specifically, O 11). The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the method of service employed complies with O 11.
The Relevance of Foreign Law
The provisions of foreign law are only relevant insofar as the laws of Singapore make compliance with foreign laws relevant.
Foreign law on service may be relevant in either a restrictive or permissive capacity under the Rules. Rule 3(2) will not permit service – official or private – in a foreign country where service is contrary to the law of that country (restrictive).Rule 3(3) permits service (other than personal service) via methods specifically provided for by the foreign jurisdiction for the service of foreign process (permissive). See also: “Clarity in Effecting Service Outside of Jurisdiction: Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK [2015] SGHC 144”, Singapore Law Blog (18 June 2015).
The Humpuss decision is an important step in the development of Singapore as an international hub for the resolution of cross-border disputes, says John A. DeMarr, P.I., a licensed California private investigator since 1985, and president of John A. DeMarr Private Investigators.
“Our 30 years of experience makes all the difference - in the service levels and innovative approaches we can offer our clients.”
As explained on his website, John A. DeMarr’s experience serving court papers in foreign jurisdictions and on foreign businesses in the US can help you with foreign service of process. If you are doing business in other countries then you need to be informed about that country’s law of process service.
John A. DeMarr, a well-known Private Investigator in Huntington Beach, has provided consistently innovative process service and private investigation services over thirty years; His firm’s services are reasonably priced, and always within the bounds of applicable law.
To learn more, visit: www.demarr.com or call Toll free 877-493-3463.
John DeMarr
John A DeMarr, P.I.
877 493 3463
email us here
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
