Binet v Foot and Others [2008] JRC 074 (15 May 2008)

Binet v Foot and Others [2008] JRC 074 (15 May 2008)

Where an advocate gives an unqualified undertaking to accept service of proceedings on behalf of a client, and service is effected within the jurisdiction pursuant to that undertaking, such service is valid and precludes the client from challenging the jurisdiction of the court, even if the client is ordinarily outside the jurisdiction and leave to serve out would otherwise be required.

Citation
[2008] JRC 074
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (not named); Defendant: First Defendant (not named); Defendant: Second Defendant (not named); Defendant: Third Defendant (Jersey company, not named); Defendant: Fourth Defendant (BVI company, not named)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application on Service and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to set aside service dismissed; service on the fourth defendant held valid and effective.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Professional Undertakings, Forum Non Conveniens
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Service of Process Jurisdiction Professional Undertakings Forum Non Conveniens

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (not named)

Plaintiff

First Defendant (not named)

Defendant

Second Defendant (not named)

Defendant

Third Defendant (Jersey company, not named)

Defendant

Fourth Defendant (BVI company, not named)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application on Service and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service on the fourth defendant (a BVI company) was validly effected within the jurisdiction via its advocate's undertaking to accept service
  2. 2 Whether such service precludes the fourth defendant from challenging the jurisdiction of the Jersey court

Ratio Decidendi

Where an advocate gives an unqualified undertaking to accept service of proceedings on behalf of a client, and service is effected within the jurisdiction pursuant to that undertaking, such service is valid and precludes the client from challenging the jurisdiction of the court, even if the client is ordinarily outside the jurisdiction and leave to serve out would otherwise be required.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside service dismissed; service on the fourth defendant held valid and effective.

Orders

  • Service on the fourth defendant is valid and effective; the fourth defendant has no right to dispute the jurisdiction of the court.