Tugendhat J set out the reasons why the existence of a jurisdiction to provide for service out of the jurisdiction, was previously considered doubtful but rightly considered that Cecil v Bayat has now settled the matter, because CPR 6.37(5)(b)(i) which is in Section IV of Part 6 dealing with service out of the jurisdiction provides: ‘(5) Where the court gives permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction . . (b) it may . . (i) give directions about the method of service.’
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2011] 2 All ER Comm 852
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc QBD 16-Jan-2014
The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.523731
