Court Considers Evidentiary Standard For Service Out Of The Jurisdiction Where Permission Not Required

• Published date: 10 January 2024
• Law Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong
• Author: Andrew Judkins

In Pantheon International Advisors Ltd v Co-Diagnostics, Inc [2023] EWHC 1984 (KB), the High Court considered the evidentiary standard a party must satisfy when seeking to rely on CPR 6.33(2B)(b) as the basis for serving a claim form out of the jurisdiction. This gateway for service, introduced in the CPR post-Brexit, permits service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction without the court's permission where the claim falls within a valid jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English courts. A claimant must demonstrate there is a good arguable case that the contract containing the jurisdiction clause exists, that the clause is valid and binding and the dispute falls within the scope of the jurisdiction clause.

Background

In 2016, the Claimant, an English company, entered into an agreement with the Defendant, a Utah company, for the Claimant to assist the Defendant with raising capital on the UK equity markets (the 2016 Agreement). There was a subsequent agreement in 2018 between the parties which was signed only by the Claimant (the 2018 Agreement). Both agreements were governed by English law and provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

In June 2021, the Claimant issued English proceedings for breach of contract relating to unpaid fees under the 2018 Agreement and a quantum meruit claim (for a reasonable sum in respect of services supplied to the Defendant). In September 2021, the Claimant...