Newland Shipping & Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading FZC & Ors

Newland Shipping & Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading FZC & Ors

Relief from sanctions was granted because most of the delay was due to circumstances outside the Fifth Defendant's control, the breach was serious but not deliberate, and refusing relief would be disproportionate given the lack of jurisdiction and absence of prejudice; the court has no jurisdiction over the Fifth Defendant as the necessary and proper party gateway was not satisfied and there was no real issue to try against the anchor defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Newland Shipping & Forwarding Limited; First Defendant: Toba Trading FZC; Second Defendant: Mr Seyed Majed Taheri; Third Defendant: Mr Hossein Rahbarian; Fourth Defendant: Mr Seyed Amin Javadi; Fifth Defendant: Mr Ahmed Sakr Mohammed Salem Al Qassimi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Claim / Ruling on Dual Application: Relief From Sanctions and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Application for relief from sanctions and jurisdictional challenge granted.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Jurisdictional Challenge, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Piercing the Corporate Veil
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Relief From Sanctions Jurisdictional Challenge Service Out of Jurisdiction Default Judgment Piercing the Corporate Veil

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newland Shipping & Forwarding Limited

Claimant

Toba Trading FZC

First Defendant

Mr Seyed Majed Taheri

Second Defendant

Mr Hossein Rahbarian

Third Defendant

Mr Seyed Amin Javadi

Fourth Defendant

Mr Ahmed Sakr Mohammed Salem Al Qassimi

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Claim / Ruling on Dual Application: Relief From Sanctions and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 should be granted to the Fifth Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the Fifth Defendant under CPR 11 and Practice Direction 6B
  3. 3 Whether service out of jurisdiction was valid

Ratio Decidendi

Relief from sanctions was granted because most of the delay was due to circumstances outside the Fifth Defendant's control, the breach was serious but not deliberate, and refusing relief would be disproportionate given the lack of jurisdiction and absence of prejudice; the court has no jurisdiction over the Fifth Defendant as the necessary and proper party gateway was not satisfied and there was no real issue to try against the anchor defendant.

Court Disposition

Application for relief from sanctions and jurisdictional challenge granted.

Orders

  • Retrospective extension of time to acknowledge service to 25 January 2017 granted.
  • Acknowledgment of service filed on 25 January 2017 stands as valid.