Search how to serve process in

This years favorite Atoll that I visited in Maldives. I guess that will change as time pass since the year just started. follow me on instagram for daily posts @seefromthesky
Ishan @seefromthesky, Unsplash

We aren’t building rockets here.  But we are building a ship of sorts, and a leaky hull means the cruise ship might not get you to that cabana sheltered rum drink you’ve been craving.  Serving process in the Cayman Islands is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention, regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter– in exactly the same way as service in England and Wales.  Still an overseas territory, the United Kingdom has extended the Convention’s coverage to the Caymans.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Now for the nuts & bolts aspect of our show, in case you need to serve a resort or one of the thousands of corporations that have set up a figurative (ie: legal) home in the Caymans:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents. The UK’s declaration to Article 5(3) requires that documents be in English.  Game over, right?  Pack up and go home?  Not so fast, counsel… make sure your individual defendant speaks English, because his U.S. Due Process rights follow him, in a sense.  Anybody sued in a U.S. court must be served in a language they understand, so if they don’t speak English, translation is still necessary.
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the Central Authority.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—likely three or four months from submission to return of proof.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • Mail service is available, but it’s a bad idea.
  • Service via private agent (process server) is available to U.S. litigants under Article 10(b). This is absolutely critical—make sure to have the process server instructed by a solicitor, or the attempt to serve is ineffective, as it otherwise violates the UK’s position on Article 10.

The UK’s declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

Bonus practice tip… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.

Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, much speculation has been thrown around concerning whether certain members of the Commonwealth of Nations might jettison their membership, kick out the monarchy, and go it alone as a republic.  That’s not in the cards for the Caymans– they’re not an independent state.  They’re a British Overseas Territory.

Many of us have a certain image of Australia pressed into our minds because of Hollywood.  It’s either Crocodile Dundee or The Crocodile Hunter or… hang on, is there just something about crocodile guys with Down Under accents that make Americans part willingly with cash?  There’s so much more to this curious country continent that it’s, well, too much for Hollywood to accurately portray, even though Mel Gibson (who is American) grew up there.  For others among us, it’s the formidable structures surrounding Sydney Harbour– the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge, the dentist’s office where Dory found Nemo.  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist talking about that adorable little fish and his forgetful protector.)

Despite so many differences and curiosities and cinematic stereotypes, Australia’s states are strikingly similar to the U.S. and Canada in terms of legal structure.  All are former British colonies, all have deep-rooted common law systems in place at the national and state/provincial level, and all have a fairly liberal attitude to serving process in civil lawsuits.  But that liberality doesn’t mean that certain procedures don’t have to be followed.

Service in Australia is governed by the Hague Service Convention, which means some background is in order before we get to the “how to” portion of our show.

  • The roadmap to the overall process—the recipe to our Secret Sauce.
  • The structure of the Convention itself is discussed in this four-part series.
  • And an absolutely critical note: the Hague Service Convention does not pertain to subpoenas.  Repeat after me—you can’t just SERVE a subpoena abroad.  In Australia, you have to file a Hague Evidence Request, governed by the Hague Evidence Convention.  Three Cardinal Rules apply—this is dramatically different from serving a summons or notice.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Here’s the “how to” of serving Down Under:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents? Logically, if service is effected in an English-speaking country, documents must be in English.  So, game over, right?  [Yay!  Pack up and go home!]  Not so fast, counsel… make sure your defendant speaks English, because his U.S. Due Process rights follow him to Australia.  Anybody sued in a U.S. court must be served in a language they understand, so if they don’t speak English, translation is still necessary.
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the appropriate Central Authority, in this case the Attorney-General.  Be sure to remit the proper fee for service, even though service fees seem to violate Article 12 of the Convention.
  • Sit tight. It may take several months from submission to return of proof– response time varies greatly by state (Australia has them, too!).  Frankly, I recommend against this option in all but the rarest of cases.  I had one fairly straightforward serve take two years to produce proof, because even the Central Authority couldn’t get the local officials to do their job properly.  Private service (read on) is unquestionably the better way to go.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • Mail service, under Article 10(a), is available.  But it’s a bad idea.  And it’s only available in Australia if it’s valid in the locality where it’s served.  Good luck determining that for sure.
  • Service via private agent (process server) seems to be available to U.S. litigants under Article 10(b).  Australia’s declarations do not articulate precisely who is and who is not authorized to serve process, and the issue has not ripened in Australia’s courts (at the state or federal level) to provide a jurisprudential conclusion.  However, the Attorney-General has indicated that foreign litigants may avail themselves of private process servers just as they did prior to Australia’s accession to the Convention in 2010.

Again, awfully straightforward stuff, much like serving U.S. documents in Canada. The method is straightforward and simple.  Australia’s declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

Bonus practice tip… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.

** Commonwealth procedures may govern the manner in which Canadian process should be served in Australia.  The author is not admitted to practice in any non-U.S. jurisdiction, so although the information presented here may be accurate, Hague channels may not be the only way to properly serve in Canadian causes of action.

Singapore's Merlion, Bjørn Christian Tørrissen via Wikimedia Commons
Singapore’s Merlion, Bjørn Christian Tørrissen via Wikimedia Commons

[This post was rendered moot on December 1, 2023 with the entry into force of the Hague Service Convention in Singapore.  For updated procedures, simply click here.]

At the far south end of the Malay Peninsula lies a tiny city state that occasionally makes the news for seemingly odd reasons.  Caning and imprisonment as a punishment for vandalism.  A ban on chewing gum (seriously).  A ban on spitting (well, let’s face it… it’s rude).  But rather than a center of arguably harsh rules on public behavior, the nation is more rightfully known as an economic juggernaut.  Anchoring the SIJORI Growth Triangle, Singapore’s manufacturing sector is huge, but financial services take an even bigger share of GDP.  North America’s commercial interconnection with Singapore is massive, and this inevitably leads to a fair amount of litigation against Singaporean companies and nationals by plaintiffs on this side of the Pacific.

Singapore is not party to the Hague Service Convention (HSC), although it has acceded to the Hague Evidence* and Child Abduction Conventions (it is also party to the Choice of Court Convention, which is not effective in either the U.S. or Canada).  Notwithstanding its absence from the HSC, serving documents in Singapore is relatively straightforward, owing to its status as a former British colony and current member of the Commonwealth of Nations.  It maintains a healthy common law system, so it should not be unfamiliar to American or Canadian** lawyers.

Service of U.S. process can be effected (1) by mail, if permissible under forum court rules, (2) by Letter Rogatory, or (3) via local counsel.  In all cases, enforcement of a judgment must be kept in mind– and it is in that light that I recommend Door #3 for just about all cases.  Addressing each in turn:

  1. Mail:  Most U.S. courts, where service is allowable by mail to begin with, allow mail service on foreign defendants only where it is not prohibited by the rules of the foreign jurisdiction.  Singapore’s Rules of Court do not specifically prohibit mail service, but they really don’t contemplate the issue.  Order 10, Rule 1(1) states that “a writ must be served personally on each defendant” (emphasis added), which opens up the question to far more argument than mail service ostensibly prevents (in short, does mail ever constitute personal service?).  I recommend against mail service except in very limited circumstances anyway– even if it stands on solid legal ground, it’s a bad idea from a factual perspective.  Moreover, if you ever seek to enforce your judgment in Singapore (or anywhere else overseas), the foreign court will undoubtedly question why you didn’t adhere strictly to Order 10.
  2. Letter Rogatory:  an official request from the forum court for judicial assistance from a Singaporean court.  Costly and time consuming, this instrument really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (see here for elaboration on what it is).  For starters, budget a $2,275 fee to the Department of State just to convey the thing.  Then anticipate several months of waiting before a response comes back through diplomatic channels.  A Letter Rogatory simply isn’t necessary to ensure that service is effected according to Singaporean law.
  3. Local Counsel:  Potentially costly, but no more so than a Letter Rogatory, and certainly on a more solid legal footing than mail.  A Singapore solicitor can ensure that local rules are followed, thus ensuring that the manner of service will not give a court cause to reject an enforcement action later.  Just make sure that the proof of service demonstrates compliance with both bodies of law (Singapore and the forum court).

Some non-Hague jurisdictions present significant problems with service.  Singapore is definitely not one of them— indeed, it is among the simplest places to serve, either within or outside the Hague community.

* Recall that subpoenas are not viewed as “service” documents in most of the world.  Compulsion of evidence in Singapore for use in U.S. courts must be sought via a Hague Evidence Request.

** Commonwealth procedures may govern the manner in which Canadian process should be served in Singapore.  The author is not admitted to practice in any non-U.S. jurisdiction, so although the information presented here may be accurate, it should not be presumed to be applicable in Canadian causes of action.

South Harbor, Helsinki. Pöllö via Wikimedia Commons.
South Harbor, Helsinki. Pöllö via Wikimedia Commons.

I say all the time that we ain’t building rockets here.  But we are communicating.  And if your phone doesn’t work correctly, you have problems.  The sturdiest cellphone I ever owned was a decade ago– in the pre-smartphone days.  It was a Nokia 6610 candy bar– manufactured in China, I’m sure, but designed in Finland.  You could throw the thing off a five-story building onto solid concrete, walk downstairs, and call your mom.  The thing was a beast.  Had Nokia kept up with the smartphone revolution, I’d still be using their stuff today.*

I digress.

Serving process in Finland is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention.  This holds true regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Here’s how it’s done in Finland:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents… maybe.  Finland’s declaration to Article 5(3) does not require translation of service documents, but that doesn’t make things easy.  They also allow individual recipients to reject untranslated service, which can really throw a Mjölnir-sized monkey wrench into the works.  Companies that do business outside Finland, however, are deemed competent in English.
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the appropriate Central Authority, in Finland’s case the Ministry of Justice.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—likely two or three months from submission to return of proof.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • Mail service is available, depending on where you are, but it’s a bad idea anyway. If you do select this route, pay particular attention to the venue court’s rules about how mail service is initiated—in federal cases, adhere strictly to FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
  • Finland also allows direct access to “judicial officers or other competent persons” under Article 10(b), but they make no definitive statement in their declarations about who those people are.  Moreover, no authority is Finland is obliged to assist foreign litigants, so it may be a nonstarter.  And in any event, the Finnish Central Authority is pretty quick.

Seriously—that’s all there is to it in Finland.  Its declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

And remember… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client, because the plaintiff may not have done it correctly.  That actually happened once, with a defendant in Norway, and her lawyers were smart enough to fight the issue.  The Washington Court of Appeals erroneously thought going outside the Central Authority was okay, but their Supreme Court saw the matter differently.

The 6610, a beast if ever there was one. Really.
The 6610, a beast if ever there was one. Really.

* Worth noting is that Microsoft acquired Nokia a couple of years ago and the company still exists as MS’ Finnish subsidiary.  When you’re suing them, you still have to serve properly, and serving the U.S. parent company will be just as ineffective as serving a U.S. sub of a foreign parent.

And lest I be remiss, I have to link the silliest reference to Finland in the known universe: Monty Python’s homage to the wintry land.

I say all the time that we aren’t building rockets here.  But we are building a ship, and a leaky ship means that your people could not possibly reach North America from Europe.  Do it the right way, and you’re the FIRST EUROPEANS TO REACH NORTH AMERICA.  That’s right, I said it.  Scandinavians got here first.  Er, well, we didn’t get here first.  But we beat Columbus to the punch by about five hundred years.

Aaaaaanyhew… I often joke about those “evil Danes who kept my Norwegian ancestors under their thumb for centuries” but the truth is, Scandinavia is made up of several (three or four, depending on who you talk to) wonderful and kindred cultures, and I look to Danes as family.  We all answer to the Viking Horn and we all know intuitively that Valhalla awaits us in the afterlife.  And deep down, we all reeeeally love playing with Legos– perhaps Denmark’s greatest export.  To this day.  Except for actresses named Nielsen (Brigitte or Connie).

I digress.

Serving process in Denmark is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention.  This holds true regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Here’s how it’s done in Denmark:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents. Denmark’s declaration to Article 5(3) does not require documents to be translated, but the judicial official serving them is required to offer the defendant a chance to reject untranslated process.  Now, I have yet to meet a Dane who doesn’t speak English as well as I do, but it’s not a fight worth having, if you ask me… just translate it.
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the appropriate Central Authority, in this case Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—likely three or four months from submission to return of proof.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • Mail service is sort of available (maybe, kinda, could be), because the Danes don’t specifically object to service by mail. They also say it might not be valid either.  Given the ambiguity, you probably don’t want to try it– and even if you want to try it… bad idea.
  • Denmark also allows direct access to “judicial officers or other competent persons” under Article 10(b), but they make no definitive statement in their declarations about who those people are.  Frankly, it doesn’t matter because Denmark’s Central Authority is pretty efficient.

Seriously—that’s all there is to it in Denmark, whose declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

And remember… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client, because the plaintiff may not have done it correctly.  That actually happened once, with a defendant in Norway, and her lawyers were smart enough to fight the issue.  The Washington Court of Appeals erroneously thought going outside the Central Authority was okay, but their Supreme Court saw the matter differently.

Little Mermaid statue, visitcopenhagen.com
Little Mermaid sculpture in Copenhagen Harbor, by Edvard Eriksen.  See more about her story at visitcopenhagen.com.

Ever see Disney’s The Little Mermaid?  Yeah, she’s Danish, having sprung from the imagination of Hans Christian Andersen.  And this is what she really looks like. –>

I say all the time that we aren’t building rockets here.  But we are building a ship, and a leaky ship means that your people could not possibly reach North America from Europe. Do it the right way, and you’re the FIRST EUROPEANS TO REACH NORTH AMERICA.  That’s right, I said it.  Scandinavians got here first.  Er, well, we didn’t get here first, but we beat Columbus to the punch by about five hundred years.   Aaaaaanyhew…

Serving process in Norway, if you can get past the stunning topography, is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention.  This holds true regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Nærøyfjorden, Bergen. Arian Zwegers, via Wikimedia Commons.
Nærøyfjorden, Bergen. Arian Zwegers, via Wikimedia Commons.

Here’s how it’s done in Norway:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents. Norway’s declaration to Article 5(3) requires documents to be submitted in Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish (a big cost saver if you have defendants elsewhere in Scandinavia) unless it can be established in advance that the defendant speaks English.  Now, I have yet to meet a Norwegian who doesn’t speak English as well as I do, but it’s usually more hassle to establish the fact than to just translate and be done with it.
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the appropriate Central Authority, in this case the Royal Ministry of Justice and Public Security.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—likely six months from submission to return of proof.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • They simply aren’t available, because Norway objects to them all. Article 5 is the only way it can be done.

Seriously—that’s all there is to it in Norway.  The method is straightforward and simple. Its declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

And remember… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client, because the plaintiff may not have done it correctly.  That actually happened once, with a defendant in Norway, and her lawyers were smart enough to fight the issue.  The Washington Court of Appeals erroneously thought going outside the Central Authority was okay, but their Supreme Court saw the matter differently.

* Løkken Verk
Løkken Verk, a century ago.

Author’s note: my ancestral homeland we’re talking about here.  If family lore and frequent mispronunciation are any guide, our name was originally Løkken, a Viking-sounding name if ever there was one.  I would call it an Ellis Island name, but Ellis didn’t open until well after my great-great grandparents arrived in the 1880s.  It wasn’t until they reached the frozen tundra of the Upper Midwest that they felt truly at home– notwithstanding the fact that they were over a thousand miles from an ocean.  

Then again, the village of Løkken is inland, about forty miles southwest of Trondheim.  In the 1880s, that was quite a journey over hill & dale.

My Norwegian ancestry is the reason I named the firm Viking Advocates.  Obviously.

1716332145-2807-2820-lxb_photoXZEKYfPI6S8lxb_photo-
CARTIST, Unsplash

I say all the time that we aren’t building rockets here.  But we are building a ship, and a leaky ship means that your people could not possibly reach North America from Europe.  Do it the right way, and you’re the FIRST EUROPEANS TO REACH NORTH AMERICA.  That’s right, I said it.  Scandinavians got here first.  Er, well, we didn’t get here first.  But we beat Columbus to the punch by about five hundred years.

Aaaaaanyhow… I often joke about those “evil Swedes who kept my Norwegian ancestors under their thumb for centuries” but the truth is, Scandinavia is made up of several (three or four, depending on who you talk to) wonderful and kindred cultures, and I look to Swedes as family.  We all answer to the Viking Horn and we all know intuitively that Valhalla awaits us in the afterlife.  And deep down, we all reeeeally want to drive a Volvo.

I digress.

Serving process in Sweden is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention.  This holds true regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Here’s how it’s done in Sweden:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents. Sweden’s declaration to Article 5(3) requires documents to be submitted in Swedish– or in Norwegian or Danish (a big cost saver if you have defendants elsewhere in Scandinavia).
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the appropriate Central Authority, in this case the Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län.  [There will be a quiz later.]
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—likely several months from submission to return of proof.  [2025 update: Article 5 serves in Sweden are now taking over a year.  That is not a typo.]

Article 10 alternative methods

  • Mail service is available, but it’s a bad idea anyway. If you do select this route, pay particular attention to the venue court’s rules about how mail service is initiated—in federal cases, adhere strictly to FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
  • Sweden also allows direct access to “judicial officers or other competent persons” under Article 10(b), but those competent persons must be specifically authorized by the Central Authority.  (Hint: we have an authorized team– and they can do it without translation if your defendant is demonstrably competent in English.  That’s a good thing, given that Swedish is quite an expensive language to translate into.)

Seriously—that’s all there is to it in Sweden.  Sweden’s declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

And remember… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client, because the plaintiff may not have done it correctly.  That actually happened once, with a defendant in Norway, and her lawyers were smart enough to fight the issue.  The Washington Court of Appeals erroneously thought going outside the Central Authority was okay, but their Supreme Court saw the matter differently.

I love ABBA, And I've loved them since the 1970s. Don't you dare judge me.
I love ABBA, And I’ve loved them since the 1970s. Don’t you dare judge me.

For the record (pun intended), my favorite Swedish export is not the Volvo.  It’s not Saab, it’s not IKEA (although– go there, go there again, and go there repeatedly), and I’ve never even been inside H&M.  It’s the fabulous pop sensation that forms the soundtrack of my childhood.  No kidding.  –>

[Author’s Note: yes, things are still functioning in Israel despite the war in Gaza, with the obvious exception of service within Gaza itself.  For defendants not located in the Palestinian territories, service is essentially business as usual.]

Serving process in Israel is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention, regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Here’s how it’s done in Israel, specifically:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents. Israel’s declaration to Article 5(3) allows the Central Authority to accept documents in English, but it may be necessary to translate them anyway.  If the defendant doesn’t speak English, the documents should be translated into either Hebrew or Arabic, depending on his or her native tongue.*  At least under Hague procedures, Israel is adamant about ensuring due process to the Arab population in its jurisdiction.  (See infra for insight regarding the Palestinian Authority.)
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the Central Authority, who will then instruct a Magistrate’s Clerk to serve.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—perhaps 6 months from submission to return of proof, depending on the defendant’s locality.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • Mail service is available, but it’s a bad idea anyway. If you do select this route, pay particular attention to the venue court’s rules about how mail service is initiated—in federal cases, adhere strictly to FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
  • Israel objects to service undertaken directly through judicial officers or private agents.  That said, though, the Central Authority will appoint a specific agent to serve on foreign litigants’ behalf.  This does not implicate Article 10(b) or (c), but the method fits squarely within Article 5(b).  The Central Authority is still involved and still issues a Hague Certificate, so the service method resembles 10(b)/10(c) service with a, Article 5 result.

Serving Palestinian defendants in territory under the Palestinian Authority’s control

Requests should still be sent through the standard Article 5 channel, but the Central Authority will hand the request off to Palestinian judicial authorities for service.  A few particulars must be observed:

  • Documents must be translated into Arabic and Hebrew.
  • The request must include the full name (four names) of the recipient.
  • The request must include the Identification Number of the recipient.
  • The request must include the full address as far as possible.

Bonus practice tip… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.

* Entities that do business in the United States are deemed competent in English– on both sides of the ocean.

View from the Rock of Cashel, County Tipperary. (Photo by the author, on vacation in April, 2018.)

We’re not building rockets here.  But we are building a ship of sorts, and a leaky vessel means the cargo may not make it to its destination.  Serving process in Ireland is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention, regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.  To be sure, service in Northern Ireland is handled only a bit differently, as it’s part of  the United Kingdom, but not entirely differently– as such, what comes below is applicable in Northern Ireland as well.  Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are common law jurisdictions—just like the rest of the English-speaking world—so things work in a very familiar manner.

You’ve got three ways to go:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

  • The roadmap to the overall process—the recipe to our Secret Sauce.
  • The structure of the Convention itself is discussed in this four-part series.
  • And an absolutely critical note: the Hague Service Convention does not pertain to subpoenas.  Repeat after me—you can’t just SERVE a subpoena abroad.  In the North, you need a Hague Evidence Convention request, while in the Republic, you have to send a Letter Rogatory because Ireland is not party to the Hague Evidence Convention.  Dramatically different from serving a summons or notice.

Now, for the chase scene.  Here’s how service is effected in Ireland:

Article 5 Service in THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

  • Although we’ve heard rumblings of a return (as of summer 2025), Ireland’s Central Authority has historically been all but non-functional.  Although that may have changed in recent years, I have yet to see a client willing to take the chance.  My best suggestion… proceed directly to Door #3.*

Article 5 Service in NORTHERN IRELAND

  • Translate the documents. The UK’s declaration to Article 5(3) requires that documents be in English.  Game over, right?  Pack up and go home?  Not so fast, counsel… make sure your defendant speaks English, because his U.S. Due Process rights follow him, in a sense.  Anybody sued in a U.S. court must be served in a language they understand, so if they don’t speak English, translation is still necessary.
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the Central Authority.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—likely three or four months from submission to return of proof.
  • If your defendant is an individual, there is a significant chance that your Article 5 request will fail. The English Central Authority uses Royal Mail to carry service of process, and if the defendant doesn’t sign for the delivery… no dice.  You get a very pleasant notice from London inviting you to try again.

Article 10 alternative methods (both jurisdictions)

  • Mail service (Door #2) is available, depending on where you are, but it’s a bad idea anyway.
  • Service via private agent (process server) is available to U.S. litigants under Article 10(b)— your Door #3!  This is the only truly viable option for serving defendants in the Republic.   Absolutely critical—make sure to have the process server instructed by a solicitor, or the attempt to serve is ineffective, as it violates the both the Irish and the UK positions on Article 10.

Declarations and Central Authority information can be found here: Northern Ireland or Ireland.

Bonus practice tip… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.

* I invite anyone who has successfully served through the Dublin Central Authority to let me know by email.  Really, I’d love to know if anything has changed.

High Tauern National Park – view from Stappitz in the Seebach Valley. Uoaei1 via Wikimedia Commons.

Update:  see here for the NEW AND EXCLUSIVE way to serve in Austria, beginning September 12, 2020.  The Hague Service Convention has entered into force in Austria.  Its declarations are yet to be posted to the HCCH website (they are on the Dutch government’s treaty database…), but the system will work, effectively, the same as in Germany… but without decentralized authorities.

Accordingly, the following is no longer effective information!

Until a couple of years ago, I had two mental images of Austria.  One was bucolic Salzburg “in the last golden days of the thirties”—that of the Von Trapps and The Sound of Music.  The second was the snowy Vienna of Amadeus—that of footlit operas and an Emperor who looked a little too much like the vice-principal from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me I’m wrong.

In 2015, Woman in Gold changed that… the list now includes the works of Gustav Klimt and an epic legal battle arising from the Nazis’ theft of priceless art works.  I watched the film on a transatlantic flight and was thrilled, but bemused, because the young lawyer handling the case (Ryan Reynolds) walked into Austria’s consulate in Los Angeles with his client (Helen Mirren) and served process by sliding a summons through a banker’s window to a receptionist.

Alarm bells started going off in my head, because for one thing, you shouldn’t hire Deadpool to represent you.  Not even Wade Wilson can just walk into a consulate and drop a summons on the receptionist’s desk.  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act says otherwise.  (To be sure, I tried to contact Randy Schoenberg, the lawyer played by Reynolds, to see how he actually did it.  No answer.  Either he did it some other way and Hollywood embellished, or defense counsel didn’t know how easy it was to get that thing kicked.)

Woman in Gold, Gutav Klimt, 1907
Woman in Gold, Gustav Klimt, 1907

In any event, a fantastic movie with a compelling story, and a stunning work of art at the center of it all.

In a nutshell, there’s one way to properly effect service in Austria:  a Letter Rogatory, with a couple of twists:

  • Proper translation.  You can’t just send the Letter Rogatory and call it good.  It must be translated into German (along with the summons, complaint, and appendant documents—literally everything handed to the defendant) by an Austrian court-certified translator.  That’s a little guild monopoly* that increases costs usually by a factor of two or three.
  • Proper transmittal.  The Letter must be conveyed via diplomatic channels, upping the ante by another $2,275 fee payable to the State Department.

Two predictions that I anticipate when the Hague Service Convention kicks in…

  • Austria will most likely object to Article 10 methods—they already prohibit them by statute, as I understand it, so I doubt highly that their treaty declarations will indicate otherwise. Australia** joined the treaty only recently, and its declarations mirror its practice before accession to the Convention.  I imagine Austria will do likewise.
  • I also anticipate that the guild monopoly on translation will go away; Mexico has a similar requirement that has been, for the most part, overridden in practice by the Convention.

(My contact info is in the upper right ↗↗↗  if you’re on a desktop.  Or down below ↓↓↓  if you’re on a phone or tablet.  Just sayin’.)

* Seriously—do we lawyers have a right to complain about guild monopolies?

** Don’t mix these up.

[They take opposite views of Article 10 methods, given the common law/civil law divide.]