Personal injury summonses renewed against foreign defendants where the agency in Sweden had failed to effect service

The Supreme Court allowed appeals in part, overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision which had set aside the renewal of two separate summonses against two foreign defendants. The Supreme Court ruled that difficulties in effecting service—especially a delay by a foreign agency beyond the plaintiff’s control—constituted ‘special circumstances’ justifying renewal of a personal injuries summons and a plenary summons as against the second defendant, and the renewal of a plenary summons as against the third defendant. However, renewal was not permitted for the personal injuries summons against the third defendant, as no efforts had been made to serve it within the year. The Court clarified that leave to serve out of the jurisdiction was not required for all defendants under the RSC where EU or Lugano states were involved, rejecting the Court of Appeal’s broad interpretation of procedural rules. No actual prejudice arose for the defendants, and widespread misunderstanding of the rules among practitioners contributed to the special circumstances.