Hume Street Management Consultants Limited v Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Al-Thani & Ors

Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction requires a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court assesses the proposed pleadings and supporting evidence without conducting a mini-trial.

Claims based on oral agreement or agreement by conduct must identify the contractual words or conduct relied on with sufficient particularity. A restitutionary or quantum meruit claim must disclose a serious issue on enrichment, enrichment at the claimant’s expense, and unjustness.

Alternative service requires a good reason. Delay in conventional service abroad, and general considerations of efficiency or pragmatism, do not by themselves justify alternative service.

Hume Street Management Consultants Ltd sought payment for project-management services relating to the redevelopment of Forbes House in London. It advanced contractual and alternative restitutionary claims against Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani, Lomakx Ltd and Forbes House Ltd.

Pepperall J had granted permission for service out of the jurisdiction and authorised service on the first defendant by post and WhatsApp. The defendants applied to set aside service and the permission for service out. The first defendant also challenged the order for alternative service.

The issues were whether the claimant had shown a serious issue to be tried on the merits and whether there was a good reason for alternative service.

1. The defendants’ applications succeeded. The court granted the relief sought under paragraphs (1) to (3) of the application, setting aside the purported service and the permission for service out of the jurisdiction, and setting aside the permission for alternative service on the first defendant.

2. Under Section IV of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 6 and Practice Direction 6B, the claimant had to show a serious issue to be tried. This required a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court was entitled to consider the proposed pleadings and supporting evidence, but should not conduct a mini-trial. The approach in HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2021] UKSC 3 was applied.

3. The contractual case failed this threshold. The claimant had not complied with paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 of Practice Direction 16—Statements of Case, because it did not adequately identify the words or conduct said to create an oral contract or contract by conduct. Its successive formulations were incoherent and largely asserted the result without explaining how a contract arose between the corporate claimant and one or more defendants, rather than between the defendants and Mr McKillen personally.

4. The restitutionary claim also lacked a real prospect of success. The claimant had not coherently shown enrichment, enrichment at its expense, and unjustness. In particular, it had not demonstrated that HSMC incurred the relevant expense or had the necessary joint understanding with one or more defendants.

5. CPR rule 6.15 permits alternative service only where there is a good reason. The anticipated delay in serving proceedings in Qatar was a background factor and did not constitute such a reason. Efficient and pragmatic conduct of litigation did not, without more, justify departing from conventional service methods.

The parties were invited to agree the form of order and consequential matters, failing which written submissions would be considered.

On 27 September 2024, Pepperall J granted permission for service out of the jurisdiction and authorised service on the first defendant by post and WhatsApp. The present first-instance judgment set that order aside on the defendants’ applications.