Service Out of the Jurisdiction – 2

United Film Distribution Ltd and Another v Chhabria and Others (CA TLR 5 April)

The provisions for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction formerly contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) of RSC Order 11 rule 1(1) were replaced by CPR rule 6.20. There was no suggestion that the power of the court under rule 6.20(3) was narrower than under RSC Order 11 rule 1(1) (c) or that the circumstances in which a person might properly be joined as a defendant to a claim were narrower under CPR rule 19.2(2) than under its relevant predecessors. Rule 19.1(2) provided that the court could order a person to be added as a new party if it was desirable to add the new party so that the court could resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings or there was an issue involving the new party and an existing party which was connected to the matters in dispute in the proceedings, and it was desirable to add the new party. Although the expression ‘necessary or proper party’ did not appear in that rule it could scarcely be supposed that the court would order a person to be added or substituted as a party on the ground that it was desirable to do so if that person were not either a necessary or a proper party to the claim in question. The court’s power to permit service out of the jurisdiction under CPR rule 6.20(3) was not less wide than the court’s wide power to add or substitute a party under CPR rule 19.1(2).