Carr v Penman
There was no real and substantial tort committed in England due to lack of proper evidence of publication in the jurisdiction; material non-disclosure by Mr Carr in the application warranted setting aside the order for service out of jurisdiction; Australia is the appropriate forum.
- Parties
- Claimant: Paul Carr; Defendant: David James Penman
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 September 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Order for service out of jurisdiction set aside; Court will not exercise jurisdiction to hear the action.
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Material Non Disclosure, Appropriate Forum
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Carr
Claimant
David James Penman
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was full and frank disclosure in the application for service out of jurisdiction
- 2 Whether there was a real and substantial tort committed in England
- 3 Whether England is the appropriate forum for the trial
Ratio Decidendi
There was no real and substantial tort committed in England due to lack of proper evidence of publication in the jurisdiction; material non-disclosure by Mr Carr in the application warranted setting aside the order for service out of jurisdiction; Australia is the appropriate forum.
Court Disposition
Order for service out of jurisdiction set aside; Court will not exercise jurisdiction to hear the action.
Orders
- Order for service of proceedings out of jurisdiction set aside
- Declaration that the Court will not exercise jurisdiction to hear the action
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment