Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Chen

The matter before the court was an application by the plaintiff, Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd, seeking confirmation of informal service and substituted service of originating documents on the defendant, Mr Chen. The dispute arose from a contract for the supply of goods, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had failed to make payments as agreed. The court was required to determine whether the steps taken by the plaintiff's agents to serve the documents on the defendant's ex-father-in-law constituted sufficient steps to bring the originating documents to the defendant's notice. Additionally, the court had to decide whether, given the defendant's circumstances, the originating documents could not practicably be served on him.

The court found that the informal service, which involved the plaintiff's agents serving the documents on the defendant's ex-father-in-law, did not meet the requirements for valid informal service under the relevant rules. The court emphasised the necessity of serving the documents on an individual who is likely to bring them to the defendant's attention. Since the ex-father-in-law was unlikely to do so, the court dismissed the application for confirmation of informal service. Regarding substituted service, the court noted that the defendant was ordinarily resident in the People's Republic of China and was prohibited by Consumption Restriction Orders from leaving the country. Despite the plaintiff's attempts to serve the documents personally, the court concluded that the defendant's circumstances did not make it impracticable to serve the documents on him personally, and thus dismissed the application for substituted service.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and case law concerning the requirements for valid service of originating documents. By highlighting the deficiencies in the service process, the court underscored the importance of adhering to the rules of court to ensure that a defendant is properly served and has the opportunity to respond to the claims made against them. Consequently, the court dismissed both applications, leaving the plaintiff to pursue alternative methods of serving the documents on the defendant.