Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Article summary
Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment considers a number of issues relating to jurisdiction agreements and service. It looks at the incorporation of jurisdiction clauses into contracts, the difficulties associated with whether there has been valid service under CPR 6.9—service at the defendant’s last known address—as well as whether the provisions for service on directors in section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), apply where a defendant is domiciled out of the jurisdiction. The judgment and its practical implications for practitioners is considered by Ian Clarke QC, of Selborne Chambers, who successfully represented the defendants.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial