Albon (t/a N A Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD & Anor [2007] EWHC 9 (Ch) (23 January 2007)

Albon (t/a N A Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD & Anor [2007] EWHC 9 (Ch) (23 January 2007)

Permission for service out of jurisdiction in respect of the UK Agreement is sustained as the claim falls within CPR 6.20(5), is governed by English law, and England is the appropriate forum. Non-disclosure and procedural irregularities do not warrant setting aside permission. Permission for claims under the South...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 9 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nigel Peter Albon (trading as N A Carriage Co); First Defendant: Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd; Second Defendant: Tan Sri Dato Nasimuddin Amin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Permission for Service Out of Jurisdiction and Related Orders / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Service
Outcome
Permission for service out of jurisdiction sustained for UK Agreement claims; permission set aside for South African Agreement and Expenses Agreement claims.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Choice of Law, Restitution for Overpayment, Limitation, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Contract Law Restitution Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Arbitration Choice of Law Restitution for Overpayment +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Peter Albon (trading as N A Carriage Co)

Claimant

Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd

First Defendant

Tan Sri Dato Nasimuddin Amin

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Permission for Service Out of Jurisdiction and Related Orders / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission for service out of jurisdiction should be set aside for claims under UK Agreement, South African Agreement, and Expenses Agreement
  2. 2 Whether England is the appropriate forum for the claims
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure warrants setting aside permission

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for service out of jurisdiction in respect of the UK Agreement is sustained as the claim falls within CPR 6.20(5), is governed by English law, and England is the appropriate forum. Non-disclosure and procedural irregularities do not warrant setting aside permission. Permission for claims under the South African Agreement and Expenses Agreement is set aside due to lack of proper connection to England, material non-disclosure, and more appropriate forums being South Africa and Malaysia.

Court Disposition

Permission for service out of jurisdiction sustained for UK Agreement claims; permission set aside for South African Agreement and Expenses Agreement claims.

Orders

  • Refusal to set aside permission for service out of jurisdiction for UK Agreement claims
  • Setting aside permission for service out of jurisdiction for South African Agreement and Expenses Agreement claims