Lakah Group & Anor v Al Jazeera Satellite Channel & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1781 (09 December 2003)

Lakah Group & Anor v Al Jazeera Satellite Channel & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1781 (09 December 2003)

The claimants failed to establish that the first defendant was properly served within the jurisdiction as required by CPR 6.5(6), and the judge was entitled to refuse to dispense with service under CPR 6.9 due to the manner in which the proceedings were pursued. There was no reasonable prospect of success for an appeal against these conclusions.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1781
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Lakah Group; Appellant/claimant: Ramy Lakah; Respondent/defendant: Al Jazeera Satellite Channel; Respondent/defendant: Ahmed Mansour
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Judgments of the Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Dispensation With Service, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Costs
Civil Procedure Service of Process Dispensation With Service Extension of Time Jurisdiction Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakah Group

Appellant/claimant

Ramy Lakah

Appellant/claimant

Al Jazeera Satellite Channel

Respondent/defendant

Ahmed Mansour

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Judgments of the Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant was properly served within the jurisdiction under CPR 6.5(6)
  2. 2 Whether the court should dispense with service of the claim form under CPR 6.9
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' application to dispense with service was properly refused

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish that the first defendant was properly served within the jurisdiction as required by CPR 6.5(6), and the judge was entitled to refuse to dispense with service under CPR 6.9 due to the manner in which the proceedings were pursued. There was no reasonable prospect of success for an appeal against these conclusions.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal the judgments of 26 March and 11 June 2003 are dismissed.
  • Claimants to pay defendants' costs of the claim, with certain exceptions, on an indemnity basis.