GULFVIN INVESTMENT LTD v TAHRIR PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION S.A.E. & Ors

On an application to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction, the claimant must show that England and Wales is clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for the action. It is insufficient that England is merely one of several suitable fora, or that it is a convenient forum for one claim within a related group of claims. The court must assess the action as formulated, including the claims and parties the claimant seeks to join. A gateway allowing additional parties to be joined does not, without more, establish a strong connection with England.

Gulfvin brought unjust enrichment and deceit claims against an Egyptian company and two individuals concerning an uncompleted share transfer under an English-law SPA. Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction had been granted without notice. The defendants applied under CPR Part 11 to set aside that permission and the resulting service. The central issue was whether England and Wales was clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for the action against all three defendants.

Application granted. Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction was set aside, together with the service effected under that permission.

1. The claimant bore the burden of showing that England and Wales was clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for the action under CPR Part 11.
2. The relevant action was the combined unjust enrichment and deceit claims against all three defendants, since the claimant maintained that the claims should not be tried separately.
3. Manek v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 625 did not establish that the test was satisfied whenever England was one of several equally suitable fora. The evidence had to identify England as the proper place for the claim.
4. The deceit claim was predominantly connected with Texas, including the representations, contracting, payment, claimant, witnesses, likely governing law and limitation issue. English connections arising from the SPA, arbitration and documents did not outweigh those factors.
5. The gateway for joining additional parties did not, without more, establish a strong connection with England. Weighing the action as a whole, Texas was the more appropriate forum and the claimant had not discharged its burden.

This was a first-instance Commercial Court decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.