Xenfin Fund 1 Trading Ltd v GFG Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 172 (Ch) (31 January 2025)

Xenfin Fund 1 Trading Ltd v GFG Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 172 (Ch) (31 January 2025)

Service on Mr Hofgren was validly effected at his last known residence as the Claimant took all reasonable steps and the address error did not affect delivery; permission for alternative service on Mr Ahmad was justified due to his evasive conduct and uncertainty of effective service under the Treaty; the claim against Mr Ahmad as de facto director has reasonable prospects of success; the Claimant did not fail in its duty of full and frank disclosure; and the question of appropriate forum and jurisdiction clauses is reserved for trial, with all claims to proceed in England for now.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 172 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Xenfin Fund 1 Trading Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant: GFG Limited; Second Defendant: Nicholas Hofgren; Third Defendant: Stuart Cheek; Fourth Defendant: Ali Raza Ahmad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Service and Jurisdiction Applications
Outcome
Applications by Defendants dismissed; Claimant's service and jurisdiction position upheld.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens, De Facto Director Liability, Alternative Service, Full and Frank Disclosure, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Company Law Conflict of Laws Service of Claim Form Jurisdiction Forum Conveniens De Facto Director Liability Alternative Service +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 8 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xenfin Fund 1 Trading Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

GFG Limited

First Defendant

Nicholas Hofgren

Second Defendant

Stuart Cheek

Third Defendant

Ali Raza Ahmad

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Service and Jurisdiction Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service on Mr Hofgren was valid under CPR 6.9 and 7.5
  2. 2 Whether permission for alternative service on Mr Ahmad should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether England or Guernsey is the appropriate forum for the dispute

Ratio Decidendi

Service on Mr Hofgren was validly effected at his last known residence as the Claimant took all reasonable steps and the address error did not affect delivery; permission for alternative service on Mr Ahmad was justified due to his evasive conduct and uncertainty of effective service under the Treaty; the claim against Mr Ahmad as de facto director has reasonable prospects of success; the Claimant did not fail in its duty of full and frank disclosure; and the question of appropriate forum and jurisdiction clauses is reserved for trial, with all claims to proceed in England for now.

Court Disposition

Applications by Defendants dismissed; Claimant's service and jurisdiction position upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration that service on Mr Hofgren was valid
  • Refusal to set aside permission for alternative service on Mr Ahmad