When Litigation Fails to Take Off

In two recent cases, non-UK domiciled Defendants succeeded in having earlier Orders granting permsions to serve out of the jurisdiction (in Colombia, and the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia respectively) set aside. As a result,  the actions failed to get off the ground, as the claim forms in each had expired. The lessons learned for any  Claimants’ respresentative are salutory, and serve as reminders that failing to follow the CPR and elevant prcocedures can cost a party much more than professional embarrasment.   Mr Justice Nugee found that  EasyGroup Limited had failed to  make full, fair and frank disclosure, and that such defect was serious, in the case of  easyGroup Ltd v Empresa Aérea de Servicios y Facilitatión Logística Integral S.A. – EasyFly S.A. and Anor [2020] EWHC 40 (Ch). The failure to follow the terms of the Order permitting service out, and act in accordance with and local laws of the Kingdom of  Saudi  Arabia, proved fatal for the action advanced by co-Claimants Cavadore Limited  &  Magenta Black Trading Limited, in which the claims, alleged to arise from an International Franchise Agreement, amounted to many millions. The Court observed in particular that the Claimants had chosen not to give any “explanation at all as to why the various defects as to service took place or why, given those self-inflicted deficiencies there is good reason to exculpate the Claimants from the consequences of those deficiencies…”   In the wake of Brexit, such cases will clearly become more prevalent.  Denise McFarland of Three New Square acted for each of the successful applicants instructed by Preiskel & Co LLP and Lipman Karras. Links to the decisions can be found here:



Posted On Category News