Baig v Hassan [2024] EWHC 3555 (KB) (19 December 2024)

Baig v Hassan [2024] EWHC 3555 (KB) (19 December 2024)

The court held that service under the CPR was invalid because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction at the time of attempted service and no permission for service out was obtained. Service under s.1140 Companies Act 2006 was also ineffective in these circumstances, as s.1140 does not override the requirement for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction when the defendant is not present. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction and the claim form must be set aside.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3555 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Ishtiaq Baig; Defendant: Zoheb Hassan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge (application Under CPR Part 11 and S.9 Defamation Act 2013)
Outcome
Jurisdiction declined; claim form set aside
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Companies Act 2006 S.1140, Defamation Act 2013 S.9, Alternative Service, Domicile, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Defamation Private International Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Companies Act 2006 S.1140 Defamation Act 2013 S.9 Alternative Service +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ishtiaq Baig

Claimant

Zoheb Hassan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge (application Under CPR Part 11 and S.9 Defamation Act 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the defendant for this defamation claim
  2. 2 Whether service of the claim form was valid under the Civil Procedure Rules or Companies Act 2006 s.1140
  3. 3 Whether England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum under s.9 Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that service under the CPR was invalid because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction at the time of attempted service and no permission for service out was obtained. Service under s.1140 Companies Act 2006 was also ineffective in these circumstances, as s.1140 does not override the requirement for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction when the defendant is not present. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction and the claim form must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction declined; claim form set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction or should not exercise jurisdiction
  • Claim form set aside