Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2009] EWHC 2297 (Ch) (18 September 2009)

Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2009] EWHC 2297 (Ch) (18 September 2009)

The defendant's use and connection to 9 Gainsborough Gardens, including his family's settled occupation and his own regular visits, established it as his usual residence for the purposes of CPR 6.9(2), making service valid. The Singapore judgment did not determine the merits but declined jurisdiction on public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2297 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Relfo Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Service And/or Stay Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Res Judicata
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata, Foreign Judgments, Liquidation, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Company Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Res Judicata Foreign Judgments Liquidation +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Relfo Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Service And/or Stay Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Res Judicata

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service at 9 Gainsborough Gardens was valid under CPR 6.9(2) as defendant's usual or last known residence
  2. 2 Whether the English proceedings are barred by res judicata due to prior Singapore judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's use and connection to 9 Gainsborough Gardens, including his family's settled occupation and his own regular visits, established it as his usual residence for the purposes of CPR 6.9(2), making service valid. The Singapore judgment did not determine the merits but declined jurisdiction on public policy grounds, so res judicata does not bar the English proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Service at 9 Gainsborough Gardens is valid and not set aside
  • Proceedings are not stayed on grounds of res judicata