Ridley v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC

Ridley v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC

Permission to serve out was not required due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause under Article 25; the claimant is permitted to amend his particulars of claim as the amendments have a real prospect of success and do not cause prejudice; the claim is not struck out as an abuse of process because the factual disputes and legal issues require full argument; the application to set aside the order for alternative service is dismissed as there is good reason for alternative service given the circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: Charles Ridley; Defendant: Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (injunction and Related Applications) / Interlocutory Applications—set Aside Service Out, Set Aside Alternative Service, Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Applications by the Bank to set aside service out and alternative service dismissed; claimant's application to amend particulars of claim granted.
Legal Topics
Anti Enforcement Injunctions, Jurisdiction Clauses, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Forum Non Conveniens, Issue Estoppel
Contract Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Anti Enforcement Injunctions Jurisdiction Clauses Service Out of Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Amendment of Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ridley

Claimant

Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (injunction and Related Applications) / Interlocutory Applications—set Aside Service Out, Set Aside Alternative Service, Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was required under Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation and CPR 6.33
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his particulars of claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to serve out was not required due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause under Article 25; the claimant is permitted to amend his particulars of claim as the amendments have a real prospect of success and do not cause prejudice; the claim is not struck out as an abuse of process because the factual disputes and legal issues require full argument; the application to set aside the order for alternative service is dismissed as there is good reason for alternative service given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Applications by the Bank to set aside service out and alternative service dismissed; claimant's application to amend particulars of claim granted.

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim granted to claimant.
  • Bank's application to set aside order for service out of jurisdiction dismissed.