Chirkunov v Person(S) Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 3177 (KB) (11 December 2024)

Chirkunov v Person(S) Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 3177 (KB) (11 December 2024)

The claimant failed to take reasonable and available steps, including Norwich Pharmacal applications and further domain registration inquiries, to identify the defendants or their location. The evidence did not establish that service by the proposed email addresses was reasonably likely to bring proceedings to the defendants' attention. The requirements of CPR 6.15 and 6.37 were not satisfied. Permission for alternative service and to serve out of jurisdiction was refused.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3177 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Anton Chirkunov; Defendant: Person(s) Unknown (rucriminal.info); Defendant: Person(s) Unknown (talk-finance.co.uk)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and by Alternative Method
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
UK GDPR, Alternative Service, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Persons Unknown, Norwich Pharmacal Orders
Data Protection Civil Procedure UK GDPR Alternative Service Service Out of Jurisdiction Persons Unknown Norwich Pharmacal Orders

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 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anton Chirkunov

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown (rucriminal.info)

Defendant

Person(s) Unknown (talk-finance.co.uk)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and by Alternative Method

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can serve proceedings on persons unknown by alternative method and out of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has taken sufficient steps to identify the defendants before proceeding against persons unknown
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of CPR 6.15 and 6.37 are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to take reasonable and available steps, including Norwich Pharmacal applications and further domain registration inquiries, to identify the defendants or their location. The evidence did not establish that service by the proposed email addresses was reasonably likely to bring proceedings to the defendants' attention. The requirements of CPR 6.15 and 6.37 were not satisfied. Permission for alternative service and to serve out of jurisdiction was refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Permission to serve the claim form by alternative method refused
  • Permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction refused