HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP

For service of a bankruptcy petition outside the jurisdiction, the creditor must show a good arguable case that a statutory jurisdictional gateway applies. A place of residence under section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is a fact-sensitive concept. It may exist even where the debtor’s settled home is elsewhere, the debtor lacks legal ownership or de facto control, and actual occupation is infrequent. The court must assess all the evidence, including permission or practical ability to use premises, family arrangements, continuity, and objective indicators. Residence is the debtor’s residence, rather than merely premises which the debtor is entitled to occupy. At the service-out stage, a plausible evidential basis may suffice where reliable assessment is impossible.

The respondent presented a bankruptcy petition concerning substantial arbitration debts and sought permission to serve it on the applicant, who was resident in Saudi Arabia, outside the jurisdiction and by alternative means. The applicant sought to set aside the service order, contending that the court lacked bankruptcy jurisdiction because he had no place of residence in England and Wales during the three years before presentation.

The issue was whether the respondent had a good arguable case under section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court considered the statutory service-out framework and the meaning of a place of residence, including the significance of family accommodation, permission to stay, actual occupation, de facto control, and Council Tax registration.

1. Outcome. The 2022 Set Aside Application was dismissed. The respondent showed a good arguable case that the applicant had a place of residence in England and Wales during the Relevant Period.
2. Service-out test. Because the applicant was resident in Saudi Arabia, the court had to be satisfied that service out was proper even though alternative service was proposed in England. Under Schedule 4 to the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, CPR Part 6 applied and a bankruptcy petition was treated as a claim form. Applying Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc [2017] UKSC 80 and Kaefer Aislamientos SA v AMS Drilling Mexico SA [2019] EWCA Civ 10, the court should assess the material reliably if it can. Where it cannot, a plausible, contested evidential basis may suffice.
3. Place of residence. The statutory concept is the same as the earlier concept of a dwelling house. It is a de facto, fact-sensitive question assessed by the evidence as a whole. Legal ownership, a tenancy, a licence, or de facto control is not essential. A moral or family-based entitlement, arrangements for access, and residence shared with others may be relevant. Actual occupation strengthens the case, but absence of occupation is not conclusive. A settled or usual home elsewhere is relevant but not determinative.
4. Application. The court relied on the purchase and longstanding family use of York House, the applicant’s earlier residence there, its availability for family accommodation, continuing permission to use it subject to availability, surrounding evidence, and Council Tax registration until December 2019. The applicant’s asserted limited licence and later explanations were rejected as manifestly incredible when tested against admitted facts and reliable documents. His lack of occupation was explained in part by the committal order and did not establish abandonment.
5. Alternative threshold. Even if no reliable assessment could be made, the respondent had shown the plausible evidential basis required under the third limb of Brownlie. The court also found a good reason for service out and alternative service under CPR 6.15(1).