TCC decides adjudicator did not stray off course – Practical Law Construction Blog

‘This was a case about the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision (as so many are) and involved many of the usual arguments (as so many do), such as did the adjudicator have jurisdiction to reach the decision and was there a breach of the rules of natural justice? Unusually, the judge also had to consider an application to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction, something I’m not really familiar with but, luckily, Helena White has already talked about that in her blog. That means I don’t need to mention whether enforcement proceedings should have been started in England or Northern Ireland, and leaves me to look at the jurisdiction and natural justice issues in more detail.’

Full Story

Practical Law Construction Blog, 13th May 2020

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Service gateways—no English jurisdiction due to failure to show ‘substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction’ (Manek & Ors v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd & Ors) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted January 16th, 2020 in fraud, jurisdiction, misrepresentation, news, service out of jurisdiction by sally

‘The claimants sought to continue a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against two defendants who had been served out of the jurisdiction, but the Court held that the jurisdictional gateways relied upon under Practice Direction 6B were not made out.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Court of Appeal gives green light to consumer rights campaigner in 4 million person strong representative action against Google – Henderson Chambers

‘On 2 October 2019, the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment given by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court, upheld the Claimant’s appeal in the case of Richard Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the court below and gave Mr Lloyd permission to serve Google LLC outside the jurisdiction (in the US), enabling him to proceed with his representative action. The class he represents is composed of an estimated 4 million Apple iPhone users. Any substantive judgment will prove interesting in demonstrating the role of representative and group actions in the space of consumer rights at the intersection of tech and information rights. Google LLC, however, has confirmed that it intends to appeal this procedural point to the Supreme Court.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 7th October 2019

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Browser Generated Information: “loss of control” entitles search engine users to compensation – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Richard Lloyd v. Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599. The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant can recover damages for loss of control of their data under section 13 of Data Protection Act 1998 without proving pecuniary loss or distress. The first instance judge, Warby J, had dismissed Mr Lloyd’s application for permission to serve Google outside the jurisdiction in the USA, so preventing the claim getting under way.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 4th October 2019

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Service by Whatsapp? – Family Law

‘In a recent dispute between cohabitees, the court has upheld an order that a claim form could be served on a defendant out of the jurisdiction by way of a Whatsapp message.’

Full Story

Family Law, 4th September 2019

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

The duty of full and frank disclosure in worldwide freezing orders and service out applications (Tugushev v Orlov (No. 2)) – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The most recent episode in litigation between two Russian Oligarch involving an application to set aside a World-wide Freezing Order (“WFO”) and permission for service out of jurisdiction (“Service Out Order”) for failures in the duty of full and frank disclosure (“the Full and Frank Duty”).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 9th August 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Wealthy divorcee sues lover by serving legal papers on him using WhatsApp – Daily Telegraph

Posted June 27th, 2019 in choice of forum, internet, news, service, service out of jurisdiction by sally

‘A divorcee already worth £90 million has won the right to fight to sue her former lover in the UK over tens of millions of assets after serving court papers on him via WhatsApp.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 25th June 2019

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

New Judgment: Vedanta Resources PLC & Anor v Lungowe & Ors [2019] UKSC 20 – UKSC Blog

‘1826 Zambian citizens issued proceedings against Zambian company KCM and Vedanta (KCM’s ultimate parent company) for personal injury, damage to property and loss of income, amenity and enjoyment of land as a result of pollution and environmental damage caused by discharges of harmful effluent from the Nchanga mine since 2005. Vedanta was served within the jurisdiction, while KCM was served out of the jurisdiction, with permission obtained on a without notice application. In September and October 2015 Vedanta and KCM respectively applied for declarations that the court lacked jurisdiction to try the claims or, alternatively, that it should not exercise such jurisdiction that it might have. Coulson J dismissed those applications. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of those applications.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 10th April 2019

Source: ukscblog.com

Are You Being Served? Rules On International Service in Family Cases – Family Law Week

‘Sarah Lucy Cooper, barrister, Thomas More Chambers considers the issue of international service in family cases.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 21st October 2018

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber v Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim – Blackstone Chambers

Posted August 9th, 2018 in interest, news, service out of jurisdiction by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Blackstone Chambers, 18th July 2018

Source: www.blackstonechambers.com

Charlene Ashiru on Protecting Your Judgment: A New Tort of Asset-Stripping? – Littleton Chambers

‘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.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 16th May 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA – WLR Daily

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

Retrospectively Validating Steps Taken by a Claimant as Good Alternative Service Under CPR 6.15(2) – if a court finds that there is a single good reason to do so, there is no further discretion not to deem the service good – Zenith PI Blog

‘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

Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (Information Commissioner intervening) – WLR Daily

Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (Information Commissioner intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 311; [2015] WLR (D) 156

‘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 – WLR Daily

Posted February 18th, 2015 in law reports, service out of jurisdiction, taxation, tribunals, witnesses by sally

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

Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc – WLR Daily

Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc [2014] EWHC 2908 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 400

‘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 – WLR Daily

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

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co and another v Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and others – WLR Daily

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co and another v Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and others [2013] EWHC 4112 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 9

‘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

The Google/Safari users case: a potential revolution in DPA litigation? – Panopticon

‘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.’

Full story

Panopticon, 16th January 2014

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others – WLR Daily

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