Ishtiaq Baig v Zoheb Hassan

Service under Companies Act 2006, section 1140 is a parallel statutory code. A director may be served at a registered address in England even when physically abroad, provided the address is within the jurisdiction. Permission to serve out is required where the registered address itself is outside the jurisdiction. Non-compliance with conditions governing service addresses does not allow a director to defeat service by relying on that non-compliance. Posting to the registered address within the CPR time limit is sufficient, whether or not the document arrives.

For section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, the court must determine domicile and appropriateness of forum at the jurisdiction stage. A claimant succeeds on the jurisdiction issue if there is a good arguable case that the defendant is domiciled in the United Kingdom or that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum.

The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant concerning statements broadcast on Pakistani television channels with audiences in Pakistan and England. The defendant challenged jurisdiction under CPR Part 11 and section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The claimant relied on posting the claim form to the London address recorded at Companies House for the defendant as a director. The defendant argued that he was outside the jurisdiction when the service step was taken, that the address was not an effective service address, and that Pakistan was the appropriate forum. The court also considered whether the defendant was domiciled in the United Kingdom and whether England and Wales was clearly the most appropriate place for the defamation claim.

1. Service under the CPR. The claim form was issued on 8 August 2022 and documents were posted to the London flat on 5 December 2022. The court found that the documents were posted but not delivered. Applying Broom v Aguilar, service under the ordinary CPR provisions could not be effected within the jurisdiction while the defendant was physically abroad without permission to serve out.
2. Companies Act service. Section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 creates a parallel code for service on directors. It permits service at a registered address shown for the director on the Companies House register, even where the director is not physically within the jurisdiction. Section 1140(8) preserves the need for permission to serve out where the registered address is outside the jurisdiction. It does not impose that requirement where the registered address is in England.
3. The London flat remained usable for statutory service even though it did not satisfy the conditions in Part 3 of the 2008 regulations. Section 1140 refers to the registered address, not to compliance with the regulatory definition of a service address. A director could not rely on his own failure to comply with the statutory requirements to defeat service.
4. Posting was sufficient. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, read with section 1140 and CPR rule 7.5, meant that service was effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting the documents within the four-month period. Actual delivery was unnecessary. The jurisdiction challenge based on CPR service was therefore rejected.
5. Section 9 challenge. The issues under section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 were to be determined at this stage. The claimant had to show a good arguable case that the defendant was domiciled in the United Kingdom or that England and Wales was clearly the most appropriate place for the claim.
6. The defendant was resident in Pakistan but residence in more than one jurisdiction was legally possible. Applying the quality and nature of the defendant’s presence, rather than a simple numbers exercise, the court reliably concluded that he was not resident in the United Kingdom at the relevant date. His presence in England was principally for medical treatment and did not form part of a settled pattern of life or make the London flat his settled or usual place of abode.
7. Pakistan was clearly the more appropriate forum. The claimant’s reputation and the defendant’s activities were principally centred in Pakistan, the broadcasts were overwhelmingly directed there and were in Urdu, and most witnesses and evidence were located there. The claimant had already commenced proceedings and obtained interim relief in Pakistan. The section 9 challenge therefore succeeded and the claim form was set aside. The separate abuse of process argument was left undecided.