Relfo Ltd v Varsani

Relfo Ltd v Varsani

The defendant's occupation and use of 9 Gainsborough Gardens, together with his family's settled residence there and his own affirmations in prior proceedings, establish that it was his usual or last known residence for the purposes of service under CPR 6.9(2). The Singapore court did not determine the merits of the claim but dismissed it on public policy grounds (non-enforcement of foreign revenue laws), so res judicata does not apply and the proceedings should not be stayed.

Parties
Claimant: Relfo Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Service And/or Stay Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Residence for Service, Res Judicata, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public Policy, Liquidation
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Insolvency Service of Process Residence for Service Res Judicata Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Public Policy +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Relfo Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Service And/or Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of proceedings at 9 Gainsborough Gardens, UK, was valid under CPR 6.9(2) as the defendant's usual or last known residence
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed on the ground of res judicata due to prior Singapore litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's occupation and use of 9 Gainsborough Gardens, together with his family's settled residence there and his own affirmations in prior proceedings, establish that it was his usual or last known residence for the purposes of service under CPR 6.9(2). The Singapore court did not determine the merits of the claim but dismissed it on public policy grounds (non-enforcement of foreign revenue laws), so res judicata does not apply and the proceedings should not be stayed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The defendant's application to set aside service is dismissed.
  • The defendant's application to stay proceedings on the ground of res judicata is dismissed.