Zhuravleva v Kamalova: High Court upholds service of proceedings by Burofax in Spain

In a judgement handed down on 11 May 2026 ([2026] EWHC 1041 (Ch)), Master McQuail of the Chancery Division upheld the validity of service of English proceedings on a defendant resident in Spain, rejecting five grounds of challenge and finding that the Burofax postal service operated by Correos — Spain's national postal service — constituted good service in accordance with the Hague Service Convention and Spanish law.

The underlying claim concerns two central London leasehold flats registered in the defendant's name, which the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had already determined were beneficially owned solely by the claimant. The High Court proceedings sought to give effect to that decision by directing the Chief Land Registrar to register the properties in the claimant's name.

Service by Burofax

The claimant instructed the Spanish firm Rivero & Gustafson to effect service. Their partner, Sebastian Galan, used the Burofax service — a tracked postal mechanism delivered through an authorised public officer — and made multiple attempts at two versions of the defendant's address in Albir, L'Alfas del Pi, Alicante. When the door went unanswered, notices were left informing the defendant that service documents could be collected from the nearest post office. On one occasion in January 2026, a person answered the door and refused to accept delivery.

Mr Galan certified that service had been carried out in compliance with Spain's Law 29/2015 on international legal cooperation in civil matters and the 1965 Hague Convention. Master McQuail accepted that evidence and was satisfied that valid service was effected on 4 November 2025.

Five grounds of challenge dismissed

The defendant, appearing in person, advanced five challenges. The court dismissed each. On translations, Master McQuail held that CPR r.6.45 only requires translations where service is effected through foreign governments or on a State under rules 6.43 or 6.44; postal service under r.6.40(3) carries no such obligation, and the defendant had not identified any Spanish law authority to the contrary.

On method, the court found that Art.10(a) of the Hague Convention permits direct postal service where the destination state has not objected, and Spain has not. Alleged misstatements by the claimant's solicitors as to response deadlines were held irrelevant to the validity of service itself. A minor spelling discrepancy in the court's order — "L'Alfaspelpi" instead of "L'Alfas del Pi" — was treated as immaterial and waived. Email service was not relied upon by the claimant and the point was accordingly set aside.

Retrospective authorisation under CPR r.6.15(2)

Master McQuail went further, finding that even if any challenge to formal service had succeeded, the steps already taken plainly brought the claim form to the defendant's attention and warranted retrospective authorisation under CPR r.6.15(2).

Applying the "good reason" test from R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355, the court noted that the defendant had engaged extensively in writing and at the hearing itself; that she had located the hearing bundle in her spam folder by 10 April 2026 (within the claim form's validity period); and that her detailed 167-paragraph witness statement demonstrated full understanding of the claim's content. The court inferred that the defendant had been making service as difficult as possible, having failed to collect notices left at her address and having had a person refuse delivery on her behalf.

With the effective service date taken as 10 April 2026, no prejudice arose. The defendant remains able to file a defence and contest the claim at trial.

Limitation and civil restraint

Arguments that the claim was time-barred under s.21 of the Limitation Act 1980 were rejected on the basis that s.21 disapplies limitation periods for beneficiaries seeking recovery of trust property from a trustee. The defendant's applications to strike out the claim and obtain a civil restraint order against the claimant were dismissed as unsupported by coherent legal reasoning.