Service of Process: Giuffre v. Duke of York

[Nick Odell]

As I understand it from newspaper reports, the lawyers for the Duke of
York are requesting the case be dismissed for a number of reasons
including irregular service of papers.

I can see that the attempts at service might not have cut the mustard
if this had been a case taking place in a UK court but as far as I can
see they would have been acceptable to a court in New York and also
would have met the terms of the Hague Convention.

Is this just a matter of lawyers throwing as much obfuscation as
possible at the case - knowing that most or many of their arguments
are without merit but challenging the other side to show it - or do
they genuinely hope to have the case dismissed for this reason?

Nick

[GB]

On 14/09/2021 18:34, Nick Odell wrote:
> As I understand it from newspaper reports, the lawyers for the Duke of
> York are requesting the case be dismissed for a number of reasons
> including irregular service of papers.
>
> I can see that the attempts at service might not have cut the mustard
> if this had been a case taking place in a UK court but as far as I can
> see they would have been acceptable to a court in New York and also
> would have met the terms of the Hague Convention.

Perhaps you know more about it, but this is what the judge said about it:

'Judge Lewis Kaplan warned Brettler that “regardless of whether your
client has been served, I have a pretty high degree of certainty that he
can be served sooner or later. Let’s cut out all the technicalities and
get to the substance.”'


And this is what a lawyer said:

“I do think the case is going to proceed. I think that Prince Andrew is
trying to dodge and hide and duck service, which is not a good look for him.

“Eventually, the judge is going say that he’s been served, either in
this occasion or in the future. Because wealthy people typically have
guard gates and walls and they can get on their plane and go away. And
they can try and evade service and they often do but it doesn’t work
forever.

I see people like this all the time, high-profile people of sexual abuse
cases, and eventually judges grow tired of it and they find an alternate
way of service, so that the case can get going.”

(From The Times website, btw.)

[Martin Brown]

On 14/09/2021 19:48, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:34:33 +0100, Nick Odell wrote:
>
>> As I understand it from newspaper reports, the lawyers for the Duke of
>> York are requesting the case be dismissed for a number of reasons
>> including irregular service of papers.

I think the "get out of jail free" card (aka secret settlement
agreement) referred to by his lawyer may prove to be problematic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58550197

I am no fan of his, but I reckon until we get Sacoolas they can whistle.
(and likewise for all other US extradition requests for UK citizens)

>> I can see that the attempts at service might not have cut the mustard if
>> this had been a case taking place in a UK court but as far as I can see
>> they would have been acceptable to a court in New York and also would
>> have met the terms of the Hague Convention.
>>
>> Is this just a matter of lawyers throwing as much obfuscation as
>> possible at the case - knowing that most or many of their arguments are
>> without merit but challenging the other side to show it - or do they
>> genuinely hope to have the case dismissed for this reason?
>>
>

>>From the US legal newsgroup where I posted a similar question
>
> https://assets.hcch.net/docs/f4520725-8cbd-4c71-b402-5aae1994d14c.pdf
>
> Ultimately it seems it would be the UKs legal system that is the arbiter
> of proper service. Which - for the UK - is probably the worse of all
> worlds.

So basically if you are rich enough to surround yourself with enough
henchmen you can effectively prevent any service of legal documents.

Is it not sufficient to deliver such documents to his legal team?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[tim...]

"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:shs9c8$10d9$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 14/09/2021 19:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:34:33 +0100, Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it from newspaper reports, the lawyers for the Duke of
>>> York are requesting the case be dismissed for a number of reasons
>>> including irregular service of papers.
>
> I think the "get out of jail free" card (aka secret settlement agreement)
> referred to by his lawyer may prove to be problematic.

well as no-one involved in the secondary action knows what's in the secret
settlement (the clue is in the name) we can't tell either way, can we?

I can't see that raising the possibility that it might be relevant is
problematic

[The Todal]

On 15/09/2021 09:03, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 14/09/2021 19:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:34:33 +0100, Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it from newspaper reports, the lawyers for the Duke of
>>> York are requesting the case be dismissed for a number of reasons
>>> including irregular service of papers.
>
> I think the "get out of jail free" card (aka secret settlement
> agreement) referred to by his lawyer may prove to be problematic.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58550197

Difficult to judge without being privy to all the arguments advanced by
the claimant. If the claimant was paid off by Epstein and not by Prince
Andrew, maybe the agreement won't protect Prince Andrew or any other men
who enjoyed the hospitality and services provided by Mr Epstein.

>
> I am no fan of his, but I reckon until we get Sacoolas they can whistle.
> (and likewise for all other US extradition requests for UK citizens)

With respect, that is utterly ridiculous. Civilised nations don't barter
with human lives, exchanging one prisoner for another, not unless they
are secret agents. Surely you can't approve of "give us Saccoolas and
we'll happily throw Julian Assange under a bus".

>
>>> I can see that the attempts at service might not have cut the mustard if
>>> this had been a case taking place in a UK court but as far as I can see
>>> they would have been acceptable to a court in New York and also would
>>> have met the terms of the Hague Convention.
>>>
>>> Is this just a matter of lawyers throwing as much obfuscation as
>>> possible at the case - knowing that most or many of their arguments are
>>> without merit but challenging the other side to show it - or do they
>>> genuinely hope to have the case dismissed for this reason?
>>>
>>
>>> From the US legal newsgroup where I posted a similar question
>>
>> https://assets.hcch.net/docs/f4520725-8cbd-4c71-b402-5aae1994d14c.pdf
>>
>> Ultimately it seems it would be the UKs legal system that is the arbiter
>> of proper service. Which - for the UK - is probably the worse of all
>> worlds.
>
> So basically if you are rich enough to surround yourself with enough
> henchmen you can effectively prevent any service of legal documents.
>
> Is it not sufficient to deliver such documents to his legal team?
>

In run of the mill cases in the UK, a party may apply to the judge for
an order for "substituted service" so that service on a lawyer or an
insurance company or a spouse, will be deemed good service. But I should
think the rules are more demanding when it comes to service of
proceedings outside the jurisdiction. I can't imagine the claimant's
lawyers simply giving up because of the effort involved.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 15/09/2021 in message <shs9c8$10d9$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Martin Brown wrote:

>Is it not sufficient to deliver such documents to his legal team?

>From watching American TV programmes I think you have to tap the party
being served on the shoulder with the documents and shout "you're served,
motherf*****".

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0n2wsg1...@news.individual.net>, at 09:48:06 on Wed,
15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>On 15/09/2021 in message <shs9c8$10d9$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>Is it not sufficient to deliver such documents to his legal team?
>
>From watching American TV programmes I think you have to tap the party
>being served on the shoulder with the documents and shout "you're
>served, motherf*****".

I have disappointing news for you: those aren't documentaries.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Do not the courts recognise that the presence of an expensive lawyer is a
strong hint that the person paying him or her is aware of the litigation?

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <shsj08$1ndl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:47:36 on Wed, 15 Sep
2021, Jeff <je...@ukra.com> remarked:

>On 14/09/2021 18:43, GB wrote:
>> On 14/09/2021 18:34, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> As I understand it from newspaper reports, the lawyers for the Duke of
>>> York are requesting the case be dismissed for a number of reasons
>>> including irregular service of papers.
>>>
>>> I can see that the attempts at service might not have cut the mustard
>>> if this had been a case taking place in a UK court but as far as I can
>>> see they would have been acceptable to a court in New York and also
>>> would have met the terms of the Hague Convention.
>> Perhaps you know more about it, but this is what the judge said
>>about it:
>> 'Judge Lewis Kaplan warned Brettler that “regardless of whether
>>your client has been served, I have a pretty high degree of certainty
>>that he can be served sooner or later. Let’s cut out all the
>>technicalities and get to the substance.”'
>

>But was it not the case that the papers had to be served before a
>particular date, after which the case could not go ahead??

In the general case, I think such deadlines are likely to be flexible
(aka clock is stopped), if the matter is "under consideration" by the
court.
--
Roland Perry

[newshound]

On 15/09/2021 10:03, The Todal wrote:
> On 15/09/2021 09:03, Martin Brown wrote:

>>
>> I am no fan of his, but I reckon until we get Sacoolas they can whistle.
>> (and likewise for all other US extradition requests for UK citizens)
>
> With respect, that is utterly ridiculous. Civilised nations don't barter
> with human lives, exchanging one prisoner for another, not unless they
> are secret agents. Surely you can't approve of "give us Saccoolas and
> we'll happily throw Julian Assange under a bus".
>

It isn't *quite* like that, though. Surely it is standard diplomatic
tactics, if one country feels another is abusing due process, to "look
more carefully at the paperwork" of a case in the other direction. Not
that Martin's phrasing would be used.

And exchange of secret agents always struck me as being quite a
civilised process.

[pensive hamster]

According to the Evening Standard:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-high-court-sexual-assault-case-b955435.html

'... The High Court in London has accepted a request by Virginia
Giuffre’s legal team to formally contact Andrew about the civil
proceedings launched in America, after first rejecting it citing a
technicality.

'... Under the Hague Service Convention, a treaty which governs
requests between countries for evidence in civil or commercial
matters, Ms Giuffre’s legal team can ask the High Court in London
to formally notify Andrew about her civil action.

'After earlier highlighting an issue with the application, the High Court
said later: "The lawyers acting for Ms Giuffre have now provided
further information to the High Court, and the High Court has
accepted the request for service under the Hague Service Convention.

"The legal process has not yet been served but the High Court will now
take steps to serve under the convention, unless service is arranged
by agreement between the parties."

[Norman Wells]

There are, however, certain immutable rules that apply that are not
satisfied by just dropping them off anywhere you choose with a cheery
request to pass them on.

They're those in Part 6 of the Ministry of Justice's Rules and Practice
Directions.

[GB]

Thanks. It's quite usual for the party with lots of money (Andrew) to
make life as difficult as possible for the party without lots of money.

In practice, Giuffre's lawyers are not short of money, but everything
they spend on this sort of procedural matter will eat into their fee,
assuming that that is a percentage of whatever they can recover. So,
it's very worthwhile for Andrew's lawyers to keep racking up the
opposition's costs in this way.

Can't he claim undiplomatic immunity, or something like that?

[Roland Perry]

In message <iqejnl...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:02:00 on Wed, 15
Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

What do those say about serving court documents to Americans, in
America?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <sipfsf$2il$7...@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:15 on Sun, 26 Sep
2021, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:34:33 +0100, Nick Odell wrote:
>

>Seems this is all moot - the Prince has accepted service.

Didn't the judge say "it'll be treated as served, if given to his US
Lawyers", at which point ignoring the documents are likely just to
dig a bigger hole.
--
Roland Perry