A Mannarino v Persons Unknown & Ors

Where alternative service has been authorised, service may be effective if the claimant has made sufficient efforts to bring the proceedings to the defendants’ attention, even where electronic delivery messages are inconclusive. Relief from sanctions is appropriate for a late service where the breach is neither serious nor significant and has caused no substantial impact on the proceedings. A decision concerning the release of a cross-undertaking for proprietary injunctions does not establish that such an undertaking should be dispensed with for Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust information orders.

The claimant sought default judgment and relief from sanctions in a claim arising from an alleged Bitcoin fraud. Earlier orders had granted worldwide freezing relief, proprietary injunctions, disclosure orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders and a Bankers Trust order, with provision for alternative service.

The defendants did not respond to the claim. The court considered whether service on the first and second defendants by email had been effective, whether relief should be granted for late service of particulars of claim on certain defendants, and whether information orders against the fourth and fifth defendants should be subject to cross-undertakings in damages.

1. Service and default judgment. The requirements for judgment in default under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 12 were met. Although emails sent to the first and second defendants generated messages indicating full, incomplete or unsuccessful delivery, permission for alternative service had already been granted. Following the earlier determination that the claimant had done everything possible to bring the proceedings to the defendants’ attention, service was effective. The claimant was also directed to notify those defendants by email that the documents were available on the court file under CPR 6.27.
2. Relief from sanctions. Applying the criteria identified in Denton v White [2014] 1 WLR 3296, the late service was neither serious nor significant. The defendants had shown no indication that they would participate, and the delay had caused no substantial impact on the proceedings. Relief from sanctions was therefore granted.
3. Information orders and cross-undertakings. Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders were made against the fourth and fifth defendants, subject to the usual cross-undertakings in damages. Jones v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm) was distinguishable. It concerned proprietary injunctions made final and did not extend to information orders of the type sought here. It was therefore not authority for dispensing with the undertaking.
4. Default judgment was ordered, with the precise form of order to be considered subsequently.