Secretary of State for the Home Department v Sedico Logistics Sp z oo

For the purposes of CPR 6.33(3), an enactment need not expressly authorise service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction without permission. It is sufficient that the enactment indicates on its face that it expressly contemplates proceedings against persons outside the jurisdiction. The test applies equally where the claimant is a Government entity or other public body. A claim which satisfies CPR 6.33(3) is not displaced by the availability of a gateway under CPR 6.36 and Practice Direction 6B. A statutory scheme providing for notices and documents to be served on persons abroad, including notices preceding an application, may demonstrate that proceedings against such persons are contemplated.

Sedico Logistics, a Polish company, appealed against a County Court decision dismissing its application to strike out the Secretary of State’s claim for leave to sell a detained transporter. The transporter had been detained after penalties under Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 remained unpaid.

The County Court held that the Secretary of State could serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction without permission under CPR 6.33(3). Permission to appeal was granted on that issue alone. The High Court considered whether the Harrods test applied to a Government claimant, whether alternative service gateways under CPR 6.36 affected the issue, and whether the statutory scheme contemplated proceedings against persons outside the jurisdiction.

1. New arguments. The court permitted Sedico’s two late legal arguments to be heard because the Secretary of State suffered no prejudice. Both arguments were untenable.
2. Public claimant. The test stated in In re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72 applied equally to a claim brought by a Government entity or other public body. No authority or coherent principle supported a more stringent test. CPR 66.2 also applied the Civil Procedure Rules to civil proceedings by or against the Crown unless displaced by another provision.
3. Alternative gateways. Under CPR 6.36, the permission gateways in Practice Direction 6B applied only where CPR 6.33 did not. Satisfaction of a gateway could not prevent reliance on CPR 6.33(3).
4. Harrods test. The relevant question was whether the enactment, even without using the rule’s precise wording, indicated on its face that it expressly contemplated proceedings against persons outside the jurisdiction. Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, read with Schedule 1 and the Carriers Liability Regulations 2002, provided for notices and documents to be issued or served on persons abroad. This included notices connected with debt proceedings, vehicle detention, and an application for leave to sell a transporter, together with an opportunity to become a party to those proceedings.
5. It was immaterial that the provisions did not expressly or impliedly authorise service of the claim form itself, or that some provisions concerned notices before proceedings began. The overall statutory scheme expressly contemplated claims against persons outside the jurisdiction.
6. Section 35A(3)(c) of the 1999 Act concerned appeals against penalty notices and did not govern whether the new arguments should be heard. The claim therefore fell within CPR 6.33(3), permission to serve out was unnecessary, and the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Appeal from the County Court at Canterbury dismissed. The County Court’s decision that permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction was unnecessary was upheld.