Harty v Sabre International Security Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 852 (QB) (05 April 2011)

Harty v Sabre International Security Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 852 (QB) (05 April 2011)

The court found that the Claimant was working for the First Defendant, that the First Defendant was party to the relevant contract with IRD, and that as a non-Iraqi company it enjoyed immunity from suit in Iraq under CPA Order 17. Therefore, the Claimant could not bring his claim in Iraq, and England and Wales was the proper forum. The Defendants' application to set aside the order for service out of jurisdiction and for a declaration of no jurisdiction was dismissed.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 852
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Harty; First Defendant: Sabre International Security Limited (formerly SIS Iraq Ltd); Second Defendant: Sabre International Security Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (tort/negligence) / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order Granting Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and for Declaration of No Jurisdiction
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Immunity From Suit, Contractual Interpretation, Negligence
Private International Law Tort Law Conflict of Laws Personal Injury Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Immunity From Suit +2 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Harty

Claimant

Sabre International Security Limited (formerly SIS Iraq Ltd)

First Defendant

Sabre International Security Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (tort/negligence) / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order Granting Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and for Declaration of No Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim has reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant enjoys immunity from suit in Iraq under CPA Order 17

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant was working for the First Defendant, that the First Defendant was party to the relevant contract with IRD, and that as a non-Iraqi company it enjoyed immunity from suit in Iraq under CPA Order 17. Therefore, the Claimant could not bring his claim in Iraq, and England and Wales was the proper forum. The Defendants' application to set aside the order for service out of jurisdiction and for a declaration of no jurisdiction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Order of Master Kay granting permission to serve out of jurisdiction upheld.
  • Declaration that the English court has jurisdiction over the claim.