International Litigation Poses Challenges That Make Legal Advice Essential

11th January 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Modern litigation spans the globe and issues concerning cross-border service of documents and jurisdiction often raise difficulties that make specialist legal advice essential. That was certainly so in a High Court privacy case with a strong international flavour.

A doctor launched a claim for damages, alleging misuse of private information and harassment against a man who he feared was intent on publishing private details about him on a website. He obtained an emergency pre-trial injunction that forbade such publication. However, the man subsequently argued that he had not been properly served with the proceedings and that the matter in any event fell outside the proper jurisdiction of the English courts.

When served with the proceedings by email, the man was in Switzerland. However, in ruling on the matter, the Court noted that the UK and Switzerland are signatories to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007 (the Lugano Convention).

Although the doctor had lived and worked in South-East Asia for some years, he was a British national and the Court was satisfied that he had a good arguable case that his centre of interests remained in the UK, where he had spent most of his career and adult life. It was also strongly arguable that online publication of the relevant private information would amount to a substantial wrong in the UK. The requirements of the Lugano Convention having been met, the Court had jurisdiction.

Service of the proceedings by email on the man when he was in Switzerland did not achieve compliance with the Hague Service Convention, nor had the Court’s permission been sought for service by that method. However, the Court took the unusual step of regularising the position by retrospectively authorising service by email. The doctor’s lawyers had believed that the man was in England when the email was sent and it was clear that it had brought the proceedings very effectively to his attention. In the circumstances, the man’s application to set aside service and discharge the interim injunction was dismissed.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Motor Insurers Not Liable for £2 Million Fire Damage

27th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

The law requires that the driver of any vehicle has a valid insurance policy that covers injury or damage to third parties caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road or in a public place. The Supreme Court has given authoritative guidance on the meaning of that phrase in a case of crucial importance to vehicle owners and the insurance industry. The case concerned an employee of an engineering firm, the owners of which allowed him to use the premises to do work on...

Ignore Court Orders At Your Peril

24th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

A wealthy Omani man who failed to pay to his ex-wife the financial settlement ordered by the court, or to cooperate with disclosure orders, faces arrest if he attempts to return to the UK. When the couple's marriage broke up, they were divorced under Omani law. However, the wife, a resident of the UK, sought and obtained orders in the UK court for financial relief (under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984) for herself and their children, who live with her. The divorce took place in 2017...

Failure to Challenge Repaving Results in Loss of Title

20th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Failing to take active steps to protect your land from use by another can produce unfortunate effects, as a couple from York discovered recently. The couple own a bungalow which has a front driveway adjacent to that of the next-door bungalow – a common design. The two effectively blend into one before reaching the road. In 1986 their neighbour repaved her drive with new paving tiles and brick edging, and in so doing went across the boundary line between the two properties. She parked her car on the area and...

Just Because You Agree Doesn't Mean the Court Will

18th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

It is common in legal disputes for the two sides to agree to suspend the court proceedings for a period so that they can get as much agreed between them as possible, and gather their evidence and prepare their arguments over what remains in dispute without the pressure of an impending hearing date. Such an agreement is called a 'standstill agreement', and if proceedings are served in time it is usual for the court to agree to the requested hiatus. In a recent family law case, one of the UK's...