SSL International Plc & Anor v TTK LIG Ltd & Ors (Rev 1)

SSL International Plc & Anor v TTK LIG Ltd & Ors (Rev 1)

Service on TTK under CPR Part 6.5(3)(b) was invalid because TTK did not carry on business within the jurisdiction. There was no waiver of the defect in service. The contracts did not incorporate English law or jurisdiction clauses. The English courts were not the appropriate forum, and mandatory injunctive relief was inappropriate due to enforcement and supervision difficulties. The appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: SSL International PLC; Claimant/appellant: LRC Products Limited; Defendant/respondent: TTK LIG Limited; Defendant/respondent: T R Venkatesh; Defendant/respondent: TT Jagannathan; Defendant/respondent: TT Raghunathan; Defendant/respondent: Dr Latha Jagannathan; Defendant/respondent: Bhanu Raghunathan; Defendant/respondent: H T Rajan; Defendant/respondent: Girish Rao
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Injunctive Relief, Contract Law, Economic Torts
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Commercial Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Injunctive Relief Contract Law Economic Torts

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SSL International PLC

Claimant/appellant

LRC Products Limited

Claimant/appellant

TTK LIG Limited

Defendant/respondent

T R Venkatesh

Defendant/respondent

TT Jagannathan

Defendant/respondent

TT Raghunathan

Defendant/respondent

Dr Latha Jagannathan

Defendant/respondent

Bhanu Raghunathan

Defendant/respondent

H T Rajan

Defendant/respondent

Girish Rao

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service on a foreign company under CPR Part 6.5(3)(b) is valid if the company does not carry on business within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether TTK was carrying on business within the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether TTK waived any defect in service

Ratio Decidendi

Service on TTK under CPR Part 6.5(3)(b) was invalid because TTK did not carry on business within the jurisdiction. There was no waiver of the defect in service. The contracts did not incorporate English law or jurisdiction clauses. The English courts were not the appropriate forum, and mandatory injunctive relief was inappropriate due to enforcement and supervision difficulties. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against the order of Peter Smith J dismissed
  • Appeal against the order of Mann J dismissed