‘Until 31 December 2020, if the English court has jurisdiction to hear a claim under the Brussels Regulation (recast), the claimant does not need permission to serve the claim form out of the UK (CPR rule 6.33(2)).’
EU Relations Law, 17th November 2020
Source: eurelationslaw.com
‘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.’
Practical Law Construction Blog, 13th May 2020
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
Family Law, 4th September 2019
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘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”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th June 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 10th April 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Sarah Lucy Cooper, barrister, Thomas More Chambers considers the issue of international service in family cases.’
Family Law Week, 21st October 2018
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2021