Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors

A court may determine permission to appeal after handing down judgment where, on an objective construction of its order, the hearing has been adjourned for unrestricted consequential matters. An order made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction must be obeyed unless and until set aside; a jurisdictional challenge does not itself prevent contempt for breach. Alternative service may be ordered despite the Hague Service Convention where special or exceptional circumstances exist. In freezing-order cases, delay in conventional service may undermine the order’s purpose, although speed alone is insufficient. Service by a method unavailable under foreign law is permissible if delivery is not contrary to that law. Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason.

The claimant obtained a worldwide freezing order and orders for alternative service. The third and eighth defendants later sought permission to appeal against the order dated 13 December 2024, concerning jurisdiction, service contrary to the 1965 Hague Service Convention, and the burden of showing that service was not contrary to Luxembourg law.

The court first considered whether it retained jurisdiction to determine permission after judgment had been handed down. It also considered a request to stay committal proceedings pending any appeal.

1. Jurisdiction to grant and enforce the order. The court held that a court of unlimited jurisdiction must be obeyed unless its order is set aside. It is no answer to contempt proceedings that the order was irregular or ought not to have been made. The High Court has general jurisdiction to grant injunctions under sections 19(1) and 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The first proposed ground therefore had no real prospect of success.
2. Alternative service and the Hague Convention. The court applied the approach that the due administration of justice may outweigh comity where special or exceptional circumstances exist. In a freezing-order case, months of delay through the foreign State Authority could undermine the purpose of the order. This was more than a desire for speed. The court rejected the second ground.
3. Foreign-law requirement. The court held that service by email was not unlawful merely because email was not an available method under Luxembourg law. The relevant question was whether delivery was contrary to that law. The evidence established that Luxembourg law did not expressly prohibit electronic service and that internal Luxembourg provisions did not apply where service resulted from the act of a foreign court. The third ground therefore had no real prospect of success.
4. Permission and consequential matters. The court concluded that there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for an appeal. Permission to appeal was refused on all three grounds. The request for a stay of the committal proceedings was left for the adjourned hearing on consequential matters, unless the defendants sought a stay from the Court of Appeal.

This was a first-instance determination of permission to appeal from the order dated 13 December 2024. The judgment states that any appeal notice could still be issued within 21 days of that order. No Court of Appeal decision is stated.