Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
October 2015 saw the introduction of three new service gateways. For practitioners the issue will be the extent to which these will assist in obtaining permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.
Practitioners dealing with cases involving an international aspect will be well aware of the need to comply with the requirement in Part 6 that the claim falls within one of the service gateways set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1 in order to obtain the court's
permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. Difficulties have been encountered in the past with certain types of claim which were held not to fall within one of the specified gateway eg confidence claims.
To address this, the Mance Committee, or the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Private International Law to give it, its official title, made a number of proposals in relation to the service gateways. A CPR Committee working group undertook
a review of those proposals and the result was the introduction of three new gateways on 1 October.
This follows two new Trust gateways introduced earlier this year.
This is a general ground and follows general gateways (1)-(4):
'(4A) A claim is made against the defendant in reliance on one or more of paragraphs (2), (6) to (16) or (21) and a further claim is made against the same defendant which arises out of the same or closely connected facts.'
The purpose of the new gateway is to enable claims which have a close factual relationship to be brought together in one jurisdiction against the defendant. To make use of this gateway, the court will need to be satisfied that:
(1) England and Wales is the appropriate jurisdiction to resolve the claim, and
(2) the court should exercise its discretion to grant jurisdiction.
Note: the wording 'the same or closely connected facts' is the wording used in Brussels I (recast) in arts 8(1), art 30(3) and recital 16. English legislation uses different wording, being 'the same facts or substantially the same facts' (CPR 17.4(2)
and LA 1980, s 35).
This new gateway in effect repeats gateway 16 and adds in new provisions to address restitution claims.
'(16) A claim is made for restitution where--
(a) the defendant's alleged liability arises out of acts committed within the jurisdiction; or
(b) the enrichment is obtained within the jurisdiction; or
(c) the claim is governed by the law of England and Wales.'
For practitioners, this new gateway retains the broadness of the wording under the old gateway 16 and as such it will cover claims for restitution for wrongs and for claims for unjust enrichment. While there has been developments in the law of restitution
these were not considered by the CPR Committee; it was dealing only with the recommendations of the Mance committee. Consequently, this gateway may be subject to amendment in the future as this area of law continues to develop.
In gateway 16(b) the word 'obtained' was considered by the CPR Committee to be wide enough to include passive receipt.
Confidence claims have been the subject of conflicting authorities and it is an area which has caused practitioners a number of difficulties when seeking permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The new gateway should seek to alleviate those difficulties.
The new gateway is:
'Claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private information
'(21) A claim is made for breach of confidence or misuse of confidential information where--
(a) detriment was suffered, or will be suffered, within the jurisdiction; or
(b) detriment which has been, or will be, suffered results from an act committed, or likely to be committed, within the jurisdiction.'
The use of the wording 'suffered' and 'will suffer' was suggested by the CPR Committee, the Mance committee having preferred the wording 'sustained, or will be sustained'. The CPR Committee approach was due to the fact that 'in cases of breach of confidence
and misuse of private information the inquiry is into detriment ‘suffered, not damage sustained'.
The need for a new gateway can be seen from existing authorities. Care should be taken when dealing with such cases to ensure that the new gateway is relied on rather than the old authorities which address the application of other gateways for such
the Court of Appeal in Vidal-Hall upheld the first instance decision that the claims for breach of confidence did not fall within gateway (9) dealing with tort claims, although the claims for misuse of private information did. Permission was given
to appeal to the Supreme Court on 28 July 2015. No date for the appeal is currently available. Vidal-Hall v Google  EWCA Civ 311
in Ashton Investments the court granted permission to serve out under gateway 11 (Claims about property within the jurisdiction) for a breach of confidence claim (Ashton Investments v OJSC Russian Aluminium  EWHC 2545
(Comm)). However, there are authorities, listed in Force India Formula One Team at , that confidential information is not property and so this case, and therefore gateway 11, cannot be relied on when seeking permission to serve out for
such claims (Force India Formula One Team v 1 Malaysia Racing Team  EWHC 616 (Ch))
It is also important to be aware that other service gateways have been amended. These are:
Those with access to LexisPSL DR can access Practice Note: Serving outside the jurisdiction with court permission—jurisdictional gateways which provides guidance on all the service gateways including the amended and new ones. Click here for a free trial.
Detailed information as to the specific issues considered by the CPR Committee can be obtained here [PDF].
0330 161 1234