Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance as to how practitioners should approach service where the party to be served is not only physically outside the jurisdiction, but has been made the subject of sanctions under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and is an 'excluded person' within section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971, with the consequence that they are not entitled to enter the UK. The court held that even where proceedings have been sent to a party’s last known address within the jurisdiction in compliance with Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which would normally result in valid service having been undertaken, service cannot have taken place by these means in the case of a party not entitled to enter the jurisdiction. The result was that the proceedings had not been validly served. In such cases service must be effected by alternative means or an order sought dispensing with service altogether. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

DR analysis: Drawing on dicta in Nykredit and Saamco (amongst others), the Court of Appeal has considered a stepped approach to determining damage for breach of duty by solicitors who had failed to provide certain information when concluding a loan agreement for a client. Although the judge at first instance had found the solicitors liable (a finding, which the Court of Appeal had trouble accepting, but had not been asked to consider further), the Court of Appeal allowed the solicitors’ appeal based on causation. Having considered the scope of the duty in question, being one to provide information rather than to advise on a course of action, it was not possible to characterise the losses incurred by the claimant in relation to his loan as ‘the foreseeable consequences of the information being wrong’ and on that basis, causation lacking there was no damage to be compensated by the solicitors.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal considered whether a solicitor’s firm owed a duty of care to a prospective client. It was held that an assumption of responsibility can be undertaken voluntarily; there being no requirement for consent. In such cases, the court will apply an objective test in determining whether there was an assumption of responsibility, and this will be based on the facts as at the time it is alleged the responsibility was assumed. The remit of the duty of care, that arises out of the assumption of responsibility, will be fact-sensitive. The extent of the prospective client/client’s legal understanding will have limited relevance when determining the remit of the solicitor’s duty of care, although it will be a factor in determining whether it was reasonable to rely on the advice given. Written by Charles Joseph, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has clarified the rules on service out of the jurisdiction on Commonwealth states which are not parties to the Hague Service Convention. CPR 6.42 (service through foreign governments and judicial authorities) and CPR PD 6B, para 5 (service in Commonwealth states) must be read together, not as alternative options. This means that service in Commonwealth states which are not party to the Hague Convention must be by ‘service direct’, unless PD6B ‘requires’ another method of service. Where another method of service is required, that method is mandatory. The judgment also highlights the importance of obtaining (and then following) any country-specific guidance from the Foreign Process Section. Finally, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the exception to immunity for a sitting head of state under the State Immunity Act 1978 will only apply where professional or commercial activity is undertaken in the ‘receiving state’ (here, the UK). Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has reiterated that a defendant is under no obligation to file an acknowledgment of service (AoS) or challenge the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11 in cases in which there has been invalid service, principles set out in the very recent Court of Appeal judgment in Robertson v Google, dated 7 October 2025. The court also considered the provisions in CPR 7.5 dealing with service by DX and held that an irrevocable step is required ie step must be taken such that the claim form cannot be retrieved eg for amendment.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal confirmed that, where a claimant deliberately suspends proceedings without objectively sufficient justification, the resulting ‘Grovit abuse’ does not create a presumption that the claim must be struck out unless compelling reasons are shown. The court must instead determine the proportionate response by applying the overriding objective and considering all the circumstances, including the seriousness of the abuse, prejudice, court resources and available lesser sanctions. Upholding the refusal to strike out BlackBerry’s claim despite an unjustified four-year pause, the decision emphasises both the breadth of the court’s discretion and the continuing risks faced by parties who unilaterally leave proceedings dormant.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal held that the issue date of the claim form is the date on which it is sealed, not the date on which the court sends it back to the claimant/claimant’s solicitors to effect service. This has practical relevance when determining the deadline for service as the four-month service period starts from the date of issue. In this case, the sealed claim form had not been received by the claimant’s solicitors, from the court, until after the service deadline had passed. The only option available to the claimant to seek to effect valid service was a retrospective extension of time; relief from sanctions not being available for late or invalid service. However, the court, agreeing with the judge at first instance, held that the solicitors had failed to comply with the requirement to have taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form as required under CPR 7.6(3). When considering whether this requirement has been met, it was held that the court can have regard to the entire background history, not just the period after the time for service has expired.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This important decision clarifies the approach to be taken when costs are sought against a litigation friend. Is such a person to be treated as being a party to the litigation? Is there a difference between a claimant’s litigant friend and a defendant’s litigation friend? If so, what is that difference, and how is it reflected in the court’s approach to making awards of costs? Written by Dr Mark Friston, barrister, at Hailsham Chambers and general editor of Friston on Costs.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Sucden’s deceit and conspiracy claims against Mr Gupta could be served outside the jurisdiction under three tort gateways in CPR PD 6B. The court held that damage arising from fraudulently induced forbearance was sustained in England because the essential harm was the loss of recovery of a debt payable there; this also supported the application of English law under Rome II. Representations allegedly made at a London meeting were also arguably substantial and efficacious tortious acts within the jurisdiction. For practitioners, the decision emphasises that jurisdictional gateways require careful analysis of the pleaded loss and supporting factual evidence, particularly as to where damage was sustained and material tortious acts occurred. Produced in partnership with Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a significant judgment on the treatment of foreign law issues on appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal concerning the interpretation and application of Palestinian commercial agency law, while providing a detailed endorsement of the principles set out by the Privy Council in Perry v Lopag Trust Reg [2023] UKPC 16. This case shows that an appeal court will be very reluctant to overturn a trial judge’s finding on foreign law where that finding depended on expert evidence which is akin to finding of fact. The appeal court will not simply read the foreign materials for itself and start again. It will usually uphold the trial judge unless the appellant can show a clear and serious error in the judge’s reasoning.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the trial judge in refusing to disclose to the parties the nature of the assistance given by an assessor appointed under section 63 of the County Court Act 1984 (CCA 1984) by an individual with a mental health diagnosis. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, holding that J D Wetherspoon plc was not vicariously liable for an assault committed by door supervisors employed by an independent security contractor. The court confirmed that the expansion of vicarious liability to relationships ‘akin to employment’ does not undermine the established rule that a defendant is generally not liable for torts committed by employees of a true independent contractor. The decision also clarifies the continuing significance of Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd, limiting it to cases where there has been an effective transfer of control and responsibility amounting to temporary employment.