I haven’t written much about this topic except to update a couple of past posts, bringing them in line with recent developments as to electronic service and the Hague Service Convention. Frankly, the developments don’t alter my usual contention a whole lot, but they do provide some persuasive authority for e-service’s use in certain scenarios.

A harsh reality in the service of process world: once a Hague Service Request gets to a foreign Central Authority, it’s pretty well locked up– especially once it’s been underway for several weeks or months. No amendments can be made, no documents can be added, and no revisions can be made to the defendant’s address.

For starters, it’s officially been simply Czechia since 2016 (see here). Peggy and I were just there a couple of weeks ago, and even the Czechs still call it the Czech Republic and Czechia interchangeably; admittedly, so do I. What they don’t call it anymore: Czechoslovakia– that nation ceased to exist three decades

The Dutch– an exceedingly practical and direct people– have a saying: Goedkoop is Duurkoop. Cheap is expensive. We of the anglophone persuasion have a variation on that theme: you get what you pay for.

But the Dutch version captures reality far more forcefully. Cheap is expensive is an apt way of articulating the constant

Our firm routinely handles service in complex cases involving multiple defendants in multiple countries, nearly always pursuant to the Hague Service Convention. In many of those cases, two or three (or even more) defendants are domiciled at the same address– especially in cases involving several subsidiaries of global conglomerates. One would think that should produce