This might not have the intellectual depth that the Bard intended with his famous question, but in the context of litigation it could be just as crucial.  If you are involved in any form of litigation, we are sure you know how catastrophic a ruling of invalid service could be further down the line (and even more so in the case of expensive international litigation).

The Hague Convention does not, in our opinion, prohibit the use of private process servers.  However, if there is the slightest chance that a defendant here in the UK will fight a US action, or if there is ever likely to be any need to enforce a judgment overseas, it makes absolute common sense to serve through Hague.

What the Convention does is to create a mechanism for effective international service through specified agencies alongside any other permissible methods.  In other words the Hague Convention is not a law that says "thou shalt and thou shalt not..."; it is an agreement that says "here is a method you could use".

The issue of whether a particular set of documents MUST be served through Hague will be governed by the laws of the country where they originate and those of the country where they are to be served (and the rules of the court in each). And, as we all know, laws and court rules are subject to interpretation!

Many American process serving experts hold the view that service of US process in the UK outside the Hague procedure is perfectly acceptable, and can quote case law a-plenty to back that view. But others do not share that view and can quote their own contrary case law.

On the one hand, service by private process server outside Hague will be cheaper and quicker than service via Hague.  On the other, if you serve privately and the defendant employs a lawyer who does not share the view that such service is valid within your rules, you can bet that a challenge to service will be the first matter on the defence agenda.

Sometimes there is no question in the client's mind of using Hague: cases where the defendant has already indicated acceptance of service, for example. And occasionally we are instructed to serve privately, but in parallel to service through Hague, simply to get the earliest possible notification to a defendant.

Speed  Service by private process server can be very fast indeed, whilst service through Hague can be reasonably speedy but has historically sometimes been extraordinarily, alarmingly and despairingly slow!  Service via our expedited Hague procedure will usually be almost as fast as service by private process server.

Cost  Service via Hague directly through our Central Authority is free - but beware the length of time taken. Please contact us on info@atpps.com for quotes for service by private process server and for service using our expedited Hague procedure.

Follow these links for fuller explanations of what is involved in Service under Hague and Service by Private Process Server. And if you want to look at the wording of the Hague Convention itself, click Here.