Summary:
Plaintiff served a Taiwanese defendant by mail with a registered mail, return receipt requested. Defendant moved to dismiss based on defective service, arguing Taiwanese law prohibits service by mailing a summons directly to the defendant.
The court rejected the argument, finding that Taiwanese law does not prohibit service of process by mail. The court also found that "mail received" stamp sufficed as a signature.
Takeaway:
Taiwan always presents a tricky case because it is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. This decision seems a bit aggressive, but it certainly makes service of process in Taiwan easier.
A common theme I see on the defense side-- "they don't do it that way in Country X" is somehow morphed into "Country X prohibits it". It's a nonsense argument, but it keeps getting made time and time again.
ReplyDeleteI still argue that serving by mail is a bad idea in Hague situations, but Taiwan is one of the rare countries in which I do recommend it, with an understanding that factual difficulties are prevalent despite the legal validity.