Fiona Havlish Et Al. v Islamic Republic of Iran Et Al.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application without notice by the claimants for an order under CPR 6.16(1) dispensing with service of the claim form in proceedings to register and enforce a United States District Court judgment against the defendants, who are the Islamic Republic of Iran and related entities. The claimants are representatives or relatives of victims of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in New York seeking to recover amounts due under that US judgment. The claimants intend to enforce the judgment on assets of the defendants within this jurisdiction.

The application arises due to exceptional difficulties in effecting service on the defendants in Iran through normal diplomatic channels. Evidence before the court includes letters from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and British Embassy officials in Tehran detailing repeated unsuccessful attempts to serve documents on the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The MFA has a policy of resisting service in politically sensitive cases and has declined to accept service, warning that further attempts would harm UK-Iran relations.

The claimants seek prospective dispensation of service to avoid being deprived of recourse in these proceedings, particularly given impending limitation concerns and the defendants’ apparent awareness of the US judgment and enforcement efforts in other jurisdictions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under CPR 6.16(1) to dispense with service of the claim form on the defendants in exceptional circumstances.
2. Whether dispensing with service is consistent with the mandatory requirements of section 12 of the State Immunity Act 1978.
3. Whether the defendants are likely to have been brought to the attention of the proceedings despite the absence of formal service.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the exceptional nature of the application, supported by detailed evidence from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office describing persistent failure to effect service on the defendants due to deliberate obstruction by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The court accepted that these circumstances constitute exceptional grounds to consider dispensing with service prospectively.

In applying CPR 6.16(1), the court referred to the precedent of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v The Syrian Arab Republic, which held that dispensing with service is not inconsistent with the mandatory service requirements under the State Immunity Act 1978. The court considered whether the defendants are likely to have been made aware of the proceedings and found evidence indicating the defendants’ awareness of the underlying US judgment and related enforcement actions in other jurisdictions, although not necessarily of the specific English proceedings.

The claimants’ willingness to undertake alternative steps to notify the defendants—by email to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, courier delivery to the Ministry's address, and service on the defendants’ Luxembourg legal representatives—further supported the exercise of discretion to dispense with formal service.

Balancing the risk that refusal to dispense with service would effectively grant the defendants immunity from suit against the public interest in complying with procedural rules, the court determined that the claimants would otherwise be deprived of any recourse given limitation constraints and the defendants’ deliberate obstruction of service.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under CPR 6.16(1) to dispense with service of the claim form and related documents, subject to corrections discussed with counsel.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the claimants’ application to dispense with service of the claim form pursuant to CPR 6.16(1).

This decision allows the claimants to proceed with enforcement of the US judgment in this jurisdiction despite the inability to serve the defendants through conventional diplomatic channels. The ruling does not establish new precedent but confirms the court’s willingness to exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances to prevent defendants from avoiding proceedings by obstructing service. The claimants are required to take alternative steps to bring the proceedings to the defendants’ attention, maintaining procedural fairness.