‘The Court of Appeal has given judgment in this case concerning (i) the proper approach to applications for permission to service out of the jurisdiction and (ii) the implication of terms as to interest.’
Blackstone Chambers, 18th July 2018
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Whilst it might be tempting as a Defendant company to dissipate assets to avoid Judgment debts, it is ill-advised and is unlikely to provide an easy escape.’
Littleton Chambers, 16th May 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA [2016] EWHC 1243 (QB)
‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘CPR r.6.15(1) provides that where it appears to the court that there is a good reason to authorise service by a method or at a place not otherwise permitted by Part 6, the court may make an order permitting service by an alternative method or at an alternative place.’
Full story
Zenith PI Blog, 2nd June 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A claim for misuse of private information should be categorised as a tort for the purposes of service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Clavis Liberty Fund LPI v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and others [2015] WLR (D) 69
‘The First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber had no jurisdiction to issue witness summonses addressed to prospective witnesses who had no presence in the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A claim brought under regulation 17 of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 for compensation on determination of an agency agreement was not in respect of a contract or a breach of contract. Accordingly, the jurisdictional gateways for service out of the jurisdiction in paragraph 3.1(6) and (7) of Practice Direction 6B supplementing CPR Pt 6 did not apply.’
WLR Daily, 29th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 21
‘A claim for misuse of private information was a tort within the meaning of para 3.1(9) of Practice Direction 6B—Service out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘I posted earlier on Tugendhat J’s judgment this morning in Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB). The judgment is now available here – thanks as ever to Bailii.’
Panopticon, 16th January 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] WLR (D) 41
“Where a claimant alleged that it had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of a third party to enter a contract with a company, and sought to make a contractual claim against the third party as being jointly and severally liable with the company, it was not appropriate for the court to pierce the corporate veil, even if it could do so on appropriate facts, since to do so would render the third party liable as if he had been a co-contracting party with the company when he had not, and when none of the contracting parties, including the claimant, had intended that he should be.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 6th February 2013
“Article 31.1 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, set out in the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, restricted the courts where an action could be brought against a defendant, and the fact that the English court had jurisdiction under article 31.1 to entertain an action against one of a series of carriers of the same goods did not enable successive carriers of those goods, in respect of whom the court did not otherwise have jurisdiction under article 31.1, to be joined in the same proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cecil and others v Bayat and others [2011] EWCA Civ 135; [2011] WLR (D) 51
“The claimants in a proposed action for breach of contract and damages were not entitled unilaterally to decide to postpone service of their claim form out of the jurisdiction under CPR 7.6(1). They should have served the form in the period of its initial validity, and, if they were not in a financial position to proceed immediately with the claim, they should have issued an application seeking a stay, or an extension of the time for procedural steps to be taken. The fact that the claimants spent the period of initial validity seeking a conditional fee agreement and after-the-event insurance was not a valid reason for their not having served the claim form, since their funds were sufficient to serve the claim even if they were not then in a position to fund the entire course of the litigation.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“There was no jurisdiction under CPR Pt 71 for a judgment creditor who was owed a judgment debt by a foreign company to obtain an order for the examination of the company’s officer who was outside the jurisdiction.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation and Others
Queen’s Bench Division
“An internet search engine was not a publisher at common law.”
The Times, 3rd August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina
Queen’s Bench Division
“A foreign state was not entitled to claim sovereign immunity to avoid enforcement of a judgment validly obtained in another overseas jurisdiction.”
The Times, 11th February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Phillips and Another v Symes and Others (No 4)
House of Lords
“A High Court judge was entitled to exercise his discretion to dispense with service of an English language claim form on defendants abroad in order to enable a case launched in England to take priority over proceedings in Switzerland.”
The Times, 28th January 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Phillips and another v Symes and others [2008] UKHL 1; [2008] WLR (D) 6
“A judge was entitled in exceptional circumstances to dispense under CPR r 6.9 with service of a claim form so that the claimants would have priority of seisin under art 21 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Sch 3C to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982).”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Foreign judgment claim
Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v. Demirel and Another
Court of Appeal
“A claimant did not have to establish that a defendant had assets within the jurisdiction in order to obtain permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment.”
The Times, 24th August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2018