Shovlin v Careless & Ors [2024] EWHC 324 (KB) (16 February 2024)

Shovlin v Careless & Ors [2024] EWHC 324 (KB) (16 February 2024)

The defendants' conduct at the Prove Up Hearing, including their counsel's limited participation and express statement of special appearance, did not amount to a general appearance or voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Californian Court under English law. The defendants remained in default and were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 324 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Iain Shovlin; Defendant: Paul Careless; Defendant: The Estate of Nigel Warr (Deceased); Defendant: MoneyExpert Limited; Defendant: MoneyExpert Holding Limited; Defendant: Money Expert Insurance Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment at Common Law / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction, Submission to Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Judicial Estoppel
Private International Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Submission to Jurisdiction Default Judgment Judicial Estoppel

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Shovlin

Claimant

Paul Careless

Defendant

The Estate of Nigel Warr (Deceased)

Defendant

MoneyExpert Limited

Defendant

MoneyExpert Holding Limited

Defendant

Money Expert Insurance Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment at Common Law / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Californian Court for the purposes of enforcing a foreign judgment at common law under English law
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the defendants' counsel at the Prove Up Hearing amounted to a general appearance under Californian law and thus submission under English law
  3. 3 Whether judicial estoppel under Californian law precludes the claimant from arguing submission

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' conduct at the Prove Up Hearing, including their counsel's limited participation and express statement of special appearance, did not amount to a general appearance or voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Californian Court under English law. The defendants remained in default and were not entitled to participate as active parties. The burden of proving voluntary submission was not discharged by the claimant. Judicial estoppel under Californian law, even if relevant, would not alter this outcome.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim to enforce the Californian judgment is dismissed
  • No order for enforcement against the defendants