Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v Srinivasan & Ors

Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction requires a serious issue to be tried, a good arguable case within a jurisdictional gateway, and England and Wales to be clearly the appropriate forum. Fraud allegations must be pleaded with precise particulars identifying the maker, recipient, time, falsity, state of mind and reliance. Foreign proceedings involving the same or related parties are highly material to forum conveniens and must be disclosed on without-notice applications. Service by alternative means in a Hague Convention case requires exceptional circumstances. Extensive amendments fall outside permission previously granted to serve a claim unless the court approves them.

The claimant bank brought claims concerning loans, guarantees, deceit, misrepresentation and related equitable causes of action against defendants domiciled in India and the USA. It obtained without-notice orders permitting service out of the jurisdiction, service by email and extensions of time. The defendants applied to set those orders aside, relying on inadequate pleading, forum conveniens, non-disclosure of related proceedings in the USA and Chennai, excessive amendments, improper alternative service and late service. The central issues were whether the jurisdictional and service requirements had been met and whether the claimant’s procedural defaults required the orders to be discharged.

1. Applications allowed. The orders permitting service out of the jurisdiction, service by email and extending time for service were set aside.
2. Under CPR 6.37, the claimant had to establish a serious issue to be tried on each cause of action, a good arguable case that a jurisdictional gateway applied, and that England and Wales was clearly the appropriate forum. The pleaded deceit and misrepresentation claims were excessively broad and failed to identify the statements, makers, recipients, dates, falsity, state of mind and reliance. They therefore did not disclose a serious issue to be tried.
3. The non-exclusive English jurisdiction clauses created a strong presumption in favour of England, but did not make England appropriate in every circumstance. The concurrent US and Chennai proceedings, involving overlapping parties and liabilities, outweighed the English connections. The inconsistent contractual jurisdiction provisions further reduced the force of the English clauses.
4. On a without-notice application, the claimant must make full and frank disclosure of matters which the opposing party would wish the court to know, particularly overlapping foreign proceedings and limitation issues. The claimant’s incomplete disclosure of the US and Chennai claims was a material breach justifying discharge of the orders.
5. Permission to serve out ordinarily relates to the claim form and particulars substantially in the form considered by the court. Extensive amendments, especially the addition of new claims, require the matter to be referred back to the court. The claimant’s amendments exceeded the permission granted.
6. In a Hague Convention case, service by alternative means requires exceptional circumstances. The claimant had produced no sufficient evidence that the defendants would evade service, and India’s restrictions under articles 2, 5 and 10 required particular respect.
7. An extension under CPR 7.6 is ordinarily justified by difficulties in effecting service, not by delay in formulating the claim. Service was also deemed to occur after the extended deadline under the order, and relief from sanctions was refused.