Maywall Ltd and Others -v- Nautech Services Ltd [2014] JCA 180 (25 September 2014)

Maywall Ltd and Others -v- Nautech Services Ltd [2014] JCA 180 (25 September 2014)

The Royal Court correctly applied the three-stage process for service out of jurisdiction, properly considered each claim against the English Defendants, and had sufficient evidence to support the claims. Procedural defects in the supporting affidavit did not invalidate reliance on Rule 7(c). The appeal is dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] JCA 180
Parties
First Appellant: Maywall Limited; Second Appellant: David Kenneth Michael Walpole; Third Appellant: Mark David Walpole; Fourth Appellant: Charles David Murch; Respondent: Nautech Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Anton Piller Relief, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Confidence, Database Right, Copyright Infringement, Joint Tortfeasor Liability
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Employment Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Anton Piller Relief Unlawful Means Conspiracy Breach of Confidence Database Right +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maywall Limited

First Appellant

David Kenneth Michael Walpole

Second Appellant

Mark David Walpole

Third Appellant

Charles David Murch

Fourth Appellant

Nautech Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to serve process out of the jurisdiction was properly granted under Rule 7 of the Service of Process Rules 1994
  2. 2 Whether each cause of action against the English Defendants meets the requirements for service out
  3. 3 Whether the Royal Court applied the correct legal tests at each stage of the three-stage process for service out

Ratio Decidendi

The Royal Court correctly applied the three-stage process for service out of jurisdiction, properly considered each claim against the English Defendants, and had sufficient evidence to support the claims. Procedural defects in the supporting affidavit did not invalidate reliance on Rule 7(c). The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to serve process out of the jurisdiction upheld
  • Costs to be determined