Alli-Balogun & On The Beach Ltd & Ors

Service of a claim form at an English agent’s premises is valid only where the overseas company is present there for jurisdictional purposes, or where an alternative-service rule is properly engaged. Separate companies within the same corporate group retain their legal identities where their finances, staff, premises and management are genuinely separate.

Under CPR 6.12, inconvenience, cost or delay do not establish that service out of the jurisdiction cannot be effected; a real impediment is required. Under CPR 6.15, the court may validate service at an alternative place where there is good reason. Defendant awareness is a critical factor, but is not sufficient alone. Delay, expense, prejudice and the interests of progressing the litigation may together justify an order.

The claimant brought proceedings arising from catastrophic injuries suffered during a holiday in Spain. The First Defendant, On the Beach Limited, issued a Part 20 additional claim against Meeting Point Youtravel Tourism LLC, a Dubai company, under an indemnity agreement governed by English law.

On the basis that Meeting Point was out of the jurisdiction, On the Beach purported to serve the additional claim at the registered office of Youtravel.com Ltd in London. Meeting Point challenged service and jurisdiction. On the Beach applied alternatively for permission to serve through an agent, by an alternative method or place, out of the jurisdiction, or for service to be dispensed with.

The issues were whether Youtravel’s premises were a place of business of Meeting Point, and whether the court should authorise or validate service under CPR 6.12, 6.15, 6.36 or 6.16.

1. Service under CPR 6.9. Applying Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 433, the court examined whether Meeting Point’s business was carried on at 55 Strand through a representative, or whether Youtravel was carrying on its own agency business. The companies had separate legal identities, finances, employees and management. Youtravel occupied and paid for the premises, and Meeting Point outsourced services to it. Its limited authority to settle complaints did not alter the overall character of the relationship. Service under CPR 6.3(1)(c) and 6.9 was therefore invalid.
2. CPR 6.12. The requirement that service out of the jurisdiction cannot be effected implicitly requires a real impediment, going beyond inconvenience. The evidence showed that service in Dubai might be expensive and time-consuming, but did not establish that it could not be effected. Permission under CPR 6.12 was therefore unavailable. If the court had jurisdiction to exercise the discretion, it would have granted permission because the other conditions were satisfied and delay was undesirable.
3. Service out. Meeting Point was a proper party to the Part 20 claim under Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1(4). The indemnity deed was governed by English law, satisfying paragraph 3.1(6)(c). England and Wales was the proper forum under CPR 6.37(3), particularly because of the underlying English proceedings and the English-law clause.
4. CPR 6.15. Following Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44, the test was good reason, not exceptional circumstances. Meeting Point knew the claim’s contents; further service would cause delay and expense; no material prejudice was identified; and the litigation needed to progress. Those factors outweighed the fact that the original route had been mistaken. Service at 55 Strand was authorised and the steps already taken were validated under CPR 6.15(2).
5. The court did not need to decide CPR 6.16. Had it been necessary, exceptional circumstances would not have been established because service in Dubai remained possible. Both the application and cross-application succeeded to the stated extent.