Speed Investments Ltd & Anor v Formula One Holdings Ltd & Ors

A court may permit a summary judgment application before determining an outstanding challenge to its jurisdiction, but that power should be exercised only exceptionally. The usual approach is to determine jurisdiction first, preserving a foreign defendant’s genuine opportunity to decide whether to submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The court should not investigate the merits or nature of the claim when deciding whether to permit the summary judgment application to proceed. A short further delay to allow a defendant to make that decision will ordinarily outweigh the claimant’s interest in immediate judgment.

The claimants applied for summary judgment under Part 24. Two groups of defendants had separately challenged the court’s jurisdiction. The applications were listed together, but the jurisdictional challenges had not yet been determined.

The defendants argued that the jurisdictional challenges should be decided first. The central issue was whether, and in what circumstances, the court should exercise its power to permit summary judgment before the jurisdictional challenges were resolved.

1. The court accepted that Part 24 permits a claimant to seek summary judgment before a defendant has filed an acknowledgment of service or defence where the court gives permission. There is therefore no absolute procedural bar.

2. Following the reasoning in European Capital Trade Finance Limited v Antenna Hungria RT, the governing procedural philosophy is that a foreign defendant challenging jurisdiction should have a real opportunity to decide whether to submit to the English jurisdiction. That opportunity should not ordinarily be prejudiced by requiring the defendant to engage with the merits.

3. The power to permit an early summary judgment application is consequently exceptional. In general, the jurisdictional challenge should be heard first, followed by the period available for the defendant to decide whether to file a further acknowledgment of service.

4. The court should not examine the details or nature of the underlying claim when deciding whether to exercise the power. The relevant question is procedural fairness and preservation of the jurisdictional choice.

5. No formal application for permission had been made and no particular grounds for permission had been advanced. The proceedings had not been conducted urgently, and a further delay of approximately two weeks, together with any necessary relisting, did not alter the balance.

6. The summary judgment application was therefore not heard concurrently with the jurisdictional challenges.