Nautech -v- CSS Ltd, Dunning, Coleman, Inns, Gollop, Maywal Ltd, Warpole and Murch [2014] JRC 071 (20 March 2014)

Nautech -v- CSS Ltd, Dunning, Coleman, Inns, Gollop, Maywal Ltd, Warpole and Murch [2014] JRC 071 (20 March 2014)

The Plaintiff established a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried against the English Defendants under Rule 7(f) (tort claims where damage was sustained within the jurisdiction) and Rule 7(c) (necessary or proper parties). The affidavit in support, though technically deficient, was sufficient in substance. Evidence relied upon would have been available through discovery. The application to set aside the order for service out of the jurisdiction was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] JRC 071
Parties
Plaintiff: Nautech; First Defendant: CSS Ltd; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Fifth Defendant: Fifth Defendant; Sixth Defendant: Sixth Defendant (English company); Seventh Defendant: Seventh Defendant; Eighth Defendant: Eighth Defendant; Ninth Defendant: Ninth Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Anton Piller Orders, Interim Injunctions, Misuse of Confidential Information, Breach of Contract, Copyright Infringement, Database Right Infringement, Conspiracy, Forum Conveniens
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Employment Law Intellectual Property Service Out of Jurisdiction Anton Piller Orders Interim Injunctions Misuse of Confidential Information +5 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nautech

Plaintiff

CSS Ltd

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant (English company)

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for service of the Re-Amended Order of Justice out of the jurisdiction on the Sixth to Ninth Defendants should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff established a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried against the English Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of the Service of Process Rules 1994 were satisfied for service out of the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff established a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried against the English Defendants under Rule 7(f) (tort claims where damage was sustained within the jurisdiction) and Rule 7(c) (necessary or proper parties). The affidavit in support, though technically deficient, was sufficient in substance. Evidence relied upon would have been available through discovery. The application to set aside the order for service out of the jurisdiction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order for service of the Re-Amended Order of Justice out of the jurisdiction on the Sixth to Ninth Defendants is dismissed.