Kea Investments Ltd v Eric John Watson
[2023] EWHC 1768 (Ch)
Rana Al-Aggad v Talal Al-Aggad & Ors
6 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 226 (Comm)
High Court
A sister sued her siblings. The siblings claimed the lawsuit papers were wrongly delivered because the sister's address was missing. The court said the delivery was fine, the siblings had missed their chance to complain, and the email delivery method was also acceptable because it got the siblings to read the papers. The sister didn't have to give her address because of safety reasons.
Key Facts
- •Rana Al-Aggad (Claimant) sued her siblings (Defendants) for breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy.
- •The Claimant is a Saudi national and refugee living in Canada.
- •The Defendants have properties in London and Surrey.
- •D3 was served personally at Heathrow Airport; D1 and D2 were served by email.
- •Defendants challenged the validity of service, citing the missing Claimant's address on the claim form.
- •Defendants also challenged the order for alternative service (email) and sought a stay on forum non conveniens grounds.
- •The Claimant applied for dispensation to omit her address due to safety concerns.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle is paramount but not absolute; it can be balanced against private interests, particularly concerning safety.
AEP v The Labour Party [2021] EWHC 3821 (KB); Taylor v Evans [2023] EWHC 935 (KB); Kennedy v Information Commissioner [2015] AC 455
CPR 16.2(1)(e) and PD 16.2.3 mandate an address on the claim form; failure to comply may invalidate service.
CPR 16.2(1)(e); CPR PD 16 paragraph 2.3
CPR 3.10 allows the court to remedy procedural errors unless they invalidate steps taken; it doesn't override specific rules.
CPR 3.10
A defendant waives jurisdictional objections by filing an acknowledgement of service without applying to dispute jurisdiction within the timeframe (CPR 11(5)).
CPR Part 11
Common law waiver occurs when a defendant's conduct is inconsistent with maintaining a jurisdictional challenge; the 'disinterested bystander' test applies.
Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 11-067 to 11-068
For alternative service, CPR 6.15 requires 'good reason'; the primary purpose of service is to ensure the defendant receives the claim form.
Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44
Outcomes
Claimant's application to dispense with including her address on the claim form was granted.
Potential personal danger to the Claimant and her son if her address were publicly available.
Service on D3 was deemed valid despite the missing address on the claim form.
CPR 3.10 allowed the court to remedy this procedural error; the Practice Direction did not provide an express sanction for the omission in these circumstances; no prejudice to D3.
D3 waived her right to challenge service.
D3 elected not to challenge service and is estopped from doing so due to her actions and representations in the proceedings.
The order for alternative service on D1 and D2 was upheld.
There was 'good reason' to authorize alternative service in August 2022 given the anticipated significant delay in traditional service and the fact that the defendants received notice of the claim.
Similar Cases
Houda Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2 (KB)
Ellison Road Limited v Khurram Mian t/a HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors & Anor
[2023] EWHC 375 (Ch)
Cosimo Borrelli & Ors v Mutaz Otaibi & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1148 (Comm)
The European Union & Anor. v The Syrian Arab Republic
[2023] EWHC 1116 (Comm)