The US Supreme Court held unanimously [opinion, PDF] Monday in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon [SCOTUSblog materials] that the Hague Service Convention [text, PDF] does not prohibit service of process by mail. The purpose of The Hague Service Convention is to simplify, standardize and generally improve the process of serving documents abroad. The court analyzed the text of Article 10(a), which states, “the Convention shall not interfere with the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad.” The court saw no reason why the word “send” would exclude the transmission of documents for the service of process. With the scope of the Convention being limited to the service of documents, the court noted that it would not make sense for Article 10(a) to exclude the service of process. Furthermore, the court reasoned that if the drafters of the Convention had wished to limit Article 10(a), they could have done so as they explicitly did in Article 15. Finally, in refuting the argument that service of process should not include mail, the court cited the French version of the convention which uses the word “adresser”, a word commonly understood to mean service or notice.

The court had initially heard oral arguments [JURIST report] for this case on March 23. In this case, Tara Menon worked for Water Splash, a company that makes splash pads for use in parks. During her employment at Water Splash, Menon began using Water Splash designs for a competitor. Water Splash filed suit against Menon in Texas state court, and sought to serve her at her Quebec home by certified mail return receipt requested, first class mail, Federal Express and e-mail, to which Menon did not respond. After Menon failed to respond, the Texas state court granted Water Splash a default judgment, and Menon moved for a new trial alleging improper service because service of process by mail did not comport with the Hague Service Convention. The Texas 14th Court of Appeals found in Menon’s favor [opinion, PDF]. The question for the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Hague Convention’s proscription on service by mail is superseded by its preservation of the freedom to send judicial documents by postal channels.