Service out of the Jurisdiction: The decision in Interflight Technical Services Ltd v Wari Holdings Ltd

This blog post explores the key points highlighted in the case of Interflight Technical Services Ltd v Wari Holdings Ltd [2026] EWHC 450 (KB), which includes the importance of following the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in international disputes. The case hones in on issues surrounding serving legal documents in another country, meeting deadlines for legal actions and the proper use of applications for court decisions. It serves as a reminder of how crucial it is to follow the rules carefully when dealing with legal matters across borders.

Background of the case

Interflight Technical Services Ltd (ITSL) wanted permission from the court to sell an aircraft to recover unpaid maintenance and storage fees. The other party, Wari Holdings Ltd (WHL), was a company based in Mauritius that was going into liquidation. ITSL tried to send legal documents to WHL in Mauritius but did not follow the correct procedures in accordance with CPR 6.40 for serving documents in another country. In addition to this, they also missed the deadline to apply for an extension to serve the documents properly. ITSL asked the court to make a final decision on the matter through a temporary application, which is not allowed. Because of these errors by the Claimant, the court dismissed the case.

Key legal points

Serving documents out of the jurisdiction: When legal documents need to be sent to someone in another country, the CPR require that the party serving the documents follows both the procedures and the laws of the foreign country and England and Wales. In this case, ITSL did not provide evidence that they followed the rules in Mauritius, which resulted in their service of documents being declared invalid. In fact, Mr Justice Richie considered that ITSL had not even checked what the relevant Mauritian law was in relation to the service of documents.

Deadlines for serving documents: The CPR states that legal documents must be served within six months of the claim being issued. This is set out at CPR 7.5 and if it cannot be done, an extension must be requested formally with evidence showing that all reasonable steps were taken to serve the documents on time. ITSL did not make this request properly or on time, which was another major issue. ITSL had failed to take all reasonable steps to serve in this time and the only application to extend the deadline for service was an oral application from their barrister. This was insufficient given the decision by the supreme court in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd that stated an application of this nature must be supported by evidence.

Summary

This case reinforces the position that the CPR must be followed absolutely and how a failure to follow them, especially when cross-border disputes arise, can result in sanctions or even the whole claim being dismissed regardless of the merits of the case. The decision is a reminder for anyone involved in international legal disputes to be very careful about following the rules set out by the other jurisdiction involved when it comes to serving documents or meeting court deadlines in accordance with the CPR.