ID v LU & Anor [2021] EWHC 1851 (Comm) (16 July 2021)

ID v LU & Anor [2021] EWHC 1851 (Comm) (16 July 2021)

Gateway 3 does not permit reliance on an anchor defendant who has only voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction; as the first defendant was not amenable to service except by voluntary submission, the claimant cannot rely on Gateway 3 to serve the second defendant out of the jurisdiction. The second defendant's challenge to jurisdiction succeeds.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1851 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: ID; 1st Defendant: LU; 2nd Defendant/applicant: BZ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction Challenge) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction and Challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application granted; English court has no jurisdiction over the second defendant.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Necessary or Proper Party Gateway, Forum Conveniens, Enforceability of Oral Agreements, Assignment of Contractual Rights, Statute of Frauds, Variation of Contract
Civil Procedure Private International Law Contract Law Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Necessary or Proper Party Gateway Forum Conveniens Enforceability of Oral Agreements +3 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ID

Claimant/respondent

LU

1st Defendant

BZ

2nd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction Challenge) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction and Challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the second defendant under Gateway 3 of Practice Direction 6B
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's voluntary submission to jurisdiction can make him an anchor defendant for Gateway 3
  3. 3 Whether there is a real issue to be tried between the claimant and the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Gateway 3 does not permit reliance on an anchor defendant who has only voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction; as the first defendant was not amenable to service except by voluntary submission, the claimant cannot rely on Gateway 3 to serve the second defendant out of the jurisdiction. The second defendant's challenge to jurisdiction succeeds.

Court Disposition

Application granted; English court has no jurisdiction over the second defendant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the English Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim against the second defendant.
  • Order setting aside the order granting permission to serve the claim form and particulars of claim on the second defendant out of the jurisdiction.