- Service gateways—no English jurisdiction due to failure to show ‘substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction’ (Manek & Ors v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd & Ors)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimants sought to continue a fraudulent misrepresent claim against two defendants who had been served out of the jurisdiction, but the court held that the jurisdictional gateways relied upon under CPR Practice Direction 6B were not made out. The claimants had sought to engage (i) the ‘necessary and proper party’ gateway (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(3)) and (ii) the ‘tortious acts committed within the jurisdiction’ gateway (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(9)(b)). In relation to (i), the court held that there was no real claim against the anchor defendant (any such claim was capable of being summarily dismissed), and so this gateway was not open to the claimants. In relation to (ii), the court held that the claimants had failed to show that their alleged losses ‘resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction’. The substantial and causative acts in fact occurred abroad; the events which took place in London were at most minor and insignificant. Written by Usman Roohani, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial