This Practice Note considers the duty of full and frank disclosure when making a without notice application for permission to serve a claim form outside England and Wales. It explains what information is material to the application, including matters relevant to the merits threshold, the jurisdictional gateway, and whether England and Wales is the appropriate forum. It also considers the need to identify adverse matters, present the evidence fairly and disclose relevant foreign proceedings. The Practice Note considers the position where material information comes to light after the order is made but before service. It also includes practical guidance, relevant court forms and court-specific guidance. For guidance on: • dealing with a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure • making an application to serve out of the jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—application for permission to serve outside England and Wales Some of the authorities referenced involved applications for freezing orders, however the principles apply equally

This flowchart sets out the steps required to ensure effective service of the claim form out of the jurisdiction.

This Practice Note explains when a claimant may serve a claim form on a defendant outside England and Wales without the court’s permission, and when permission is required. It also outlines the routes available and the requirements for an application for permission. Where the claimant intends to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction without permission under CPR 6.32 or CPR 6.33, it must file and serve a notice stating the grounds on which it is entitled to do so. The notice is made using practice form N510. If it is not filed with the claim form, the claim form may not be served unless and until the notice is filed, unless the court gives permission (CPR 6.34 and CPR PD 6B, para 2.1). For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—Form N510. The general rule is that court documents must be served within the jurisdiction, ie England and Wales (CPR 6.6(1) and CPR 2.3). In cases in which the defendant is located outside England

This Practice Note considers CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(10) which provides a jurisdictional gateway where a claim is being made to enforce a judgment or arbitral award. Gateway 10 CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(10) sets out a specific gateway to provide jurisdiction for claims to enforce a judgment or an arbitral award. Gateway 10 provides a jurisdictional gateway for service out where a claim is made to enforce any judgment or arbitral award. It includes claims to enforce foreign judgments at common law (Al-Hamed v Al-Hamed (2024)). Reliance on gateway 10 does not dispense with the other requirements for permission to serve out, including that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success and that England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring it. The court also retains a discretion whether to grant permission. In practice, gateway 10 can be relied upon where a claimant brings an enforcement claim in England and Wales and the claim must be served on a defendant outside the jurisdiction. It is particularly important

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(11) dealing with claims about property within the jurisdiction. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Claims about property within the jurisdiction—gateway 11 Gateway 11 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(11)) provides: ‘The subject matter of the claim relates wholly or principally to property within the jurisdiction, provided that nothing under this paragraph shall render justiciable the title to or the right to possession of immovable property outside England and Wales.’ When considering the meaning of the wording used in gateway 11 and how it is be applied, guidance can be found both in the Gateways for Service out of the Jurisdiction Final report 4 June 2015 (Final Report 2015) and the authorities, as explored below. The meaning of the wording ‘a claim’ The meaning of the wording ‘a claim’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS v

This Practice Note considers jurisdictional gateway 16 dealing with restitution claims, which is set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(16). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). This gateway was effectively repealed in October 2015 with new provisions being substituted. This should be borne in mind if reviewing older authorities interpreting the gateway. The old version provided: ‘(16) A claim is made for restitution where the defendant’s alleged liability arises out of acts committed within the jurisdiction.’ Restitution claims—gateway 16 Gateway 16 provides: ‘(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 dealing with restitution claims, only one of the limbs in gateway 16 will need to be met: • gateway 16(a)—this is broad in that it focuses on the remedy sought rather than the different types

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(16A) dealing with declarations of non-liability. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Declaration of non-liability Gateway 16A (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(16A)) provides a specific gateway when bringing a claim for a declaration of non-liability: ‘(16A) A claim is made for a declaration that the claimant is not liable where, if a claim were brought against the claimant seeking to establish that liability, that claim would fall within another paragraph of this Practice Direction (excluding paragraphs (1) to (5), (8), (12D), (15D), (17), (22) and (24) to (25)).’ When considering whether gateway 16A applies, it will be necessary to show that a claim, if brought against the claimant, would fall within one of the

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(18) dealing with claims for costs order in favour of or against non-parties (also known as third party cost orders). The Practice Note sets out gateway 18 and provides insight into the way in which it has been interpreted by the courts. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). For information on non-party costs orders, see Practice Notes: Non-party costs orders—guidelines and Non-party costs orders—application. Gateway 18 Gateway 18 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(18)) provides: ‘(18) A claim is made by a party to proceedings for an order that the court exercise its power under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to make a costs order in favour of or against a person who is not a party to those proceedings. (Rule 46.2 sets out the procedure where the court is considering whether to exercise its discretion to make a costs order in favour

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(20) dealing with claims under various enactments. The Practice Note sets out the gateway and provides insight into the way in which it has been interpreted by the courts. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). What criteria will need to be met? Gateway 20 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(20)) provides that: ‘(20) A claim is made— (a) under an enactment which allows proceedings to be brought and those proceedings are not covered by any of the other grounds referred to in this paragraph; or (b) under the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 15 March 1976 No. 76/308/EEC, where service is to be effected in a Member State of the European Union.’ It should be noted that the provision in the second limb of the gateway was deleted from 1 January 2021 under the 107th update Practice Direction

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(25) dealing with information orders against non-parties. It applies to orders such as Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) and Bankers Trust orders. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). What are information orders? Information orders are most commonly sought against a third party who has innocently become mixed up in some wrong doing. The purpose of the order is to obtain information as to either the identity of the wrongdoer and/or information which can be used to trace assets. Information orders may include, for example, requests for other documents or information that the claimant/applicant says are needed to identify the defendant, trace property or plead its claim. Examples of information orders against non-parties are NPOs and Bankers Trust orders. For guidance about the use of such orders, see Practice Notes: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) and Bankers Trust orders. Such orders may also be sought in support

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(3) dealing with bringing claims against a necessary or proper party to a claim between the claimant and the defendant which it is reasonable for the court to determine. For guidance when dealing with additional claims under Part 20 and considering whether the person to be served is a necessary or proper party to the claim or additional claim, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdiction gateways 1, 1A, 2, 4 and 4A (general grounds)—Gateway 4—additional claims. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). This Practice Note refers to: • the Privy Council decision in AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel (2011). In some law reports, this judgment is referred to as Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel • the courts of England and Wales as the English courts Requirements for gateway 3 Gateway 3 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(3)) provides

This Practice Note considers the jurisdictional service gateway or ground for service set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(9) dealing with tort claims (gateway 9). The Practice Note sets out gateway 9 and provides insight into the way in which it has been interpreted by the courts. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Gateway 9 has been held to apply to different types of claims such as patent infringement, defamation, deceit, conspiracy and misuse of personal information. However, when considering any authorities, it is important to consider whether any gateways have been introduced or amended since the date of the judgment under consideration, as a different gateway may now be appropriate. For example: gateways 21–23 have been introduced to cover breach of confidence and misuse of information claims. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways 21–23 (breach of confidence/misuse of information). Gateway 9 Gateway 9 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(9)) provides: ‘(9) A claim is made in tort where— (a) damage was sustained,