Out of the jurisdiction

Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v Demirel and others CA TLR 24 August

CPR rule 6.20(9) provides that a claim form may be served out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court, if a claim is made to enforce any judgment or arbitral award. The rule is to be given its ordinary and natural meaning and there is no reason to imply restrictions into it. Accordingly, a claimant seeking to enforce a foreign judgment by action does not have to show that there are assets in the jurisdiction, merely that he has a good arguable case that judgment should be given based upon the foreign judgment. Ordinarily, the claimant also has to show that he could reasonably expect to benefit from such a judgment. Otherwise, there would be no useful purpose in the proceedings. In the present case, it was important that the judgment had been obtained in Turkey on the basis of conclusions that the defendant was guilty of fraud. Experience suggested that in such cases, if the findings were true, it was often difficult to locate a defendant’s assets. It was a reasonable possibility that the defendant would have assets in London in future, either in the form of physical assets or in the form of claims against other institutions. If the proceedings were set aside, no action could be brought in future because it would be time barred and the defendant would be able to bring funds to London free of a risk of execution. In the circumstances, the continued existence of the action was of potential benefit to the claimant.