Abdulhamid Agel J Tanash v HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum

A defendant does not submit to the jurisdiction merely by applying for a declaration that service was invalid, where the application challenges the court’s jurisdiction and does not demonstrate willingness to have the dispute determined on its merits. For service under CPR 6.9, an individual’s usual or last known residence is the place where the person lives, is settled or has their usual abode with some degree of permanence. Service at a hotel or embassy is ineffective where neither is the defendant’s usual or last known residence. Permission is generally required for service outside the jurisdiction under CPR Part 6.36, subject to applicable exceptions. If service has not been effected within the permitted time, the claim form may be set aside.

The claimant brought intellectual property and related claims against the ruler of Dubai concerning alleged copying of software or a project concept in the United Arab Emirates. The defendant applied for a declaration that he was immune from jurisdiction and for a declaration that the claim form had not been validly served.

The claim form had been sent to a London hotel and the UAE Embassy. The court considered whether pursuing the service challenge amounted to submission to the jurisdiction, whether either address was the defendant’s residence for CPR 6.9, and whether permission was required for service outside the jurisdiction.

1. Submission to jurisdiction. The application for a declaration that the claim form was not validly served did not constitute submission to the jurisdiction. Under section 2 of the State Immunity Act 1978, the relevant question is whether the defendant has taken a step demonstrating an unequivocal election to waive immunity and allow the court to determine the substance of the dispute. The application did the opposite: it contended that the court should not determine the substance of the claim. Neither making nor pursuing it constituted submission.
2. Residence and service. Under CPR 6.9, where the defendant has not given an address for service, an individual must be served at his or her usual or last known residence. Residence is an ordinary word denoting the place where a person lives, is settled or has their usual abode, with some degree of permanence. On the evidence, the defendant lived in Dubai. The London hotel and UAE Embassy were neither his usual nor last known residence. Service at those addresses was therefore invalid.
3. Service outside the jurisdiction. The claimant also required permission under CPR Part 6.36 to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction. No permission had been sought or granted, and no exception applied.
4. The time for service had expired. The claim form was set aside.