MASRI V CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL CO SAL

[2008] EWCA Civ 876, Court of Appeal, Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, 27 July 2008

Procedure – Jurisdiction – Enforcement of judgments – Application for evidence to be given in respect of judgment debtor’s assets – Whether order could be granted against defendant domiciled in Greece – Whether permission of court for service out required – CPR Parts 6.30 and 71

The claimant obtained a judgment against two companies, but it was not satisfied. The claimant obtained a without notice order under CPR Part 71 directing the defendants, as officers of one of the companies, to attend court and provide information about the company’s means so that the judgment could be enforced. The defendants were both domiciled in Greece. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction to grant the order against a foreign defendant in respect of foreign assets. The Court of Appeal held that the necessary jurisdiction existed under the Brussels Regulation, in that if the English court had jurisdiction over the substantive proceedings then it also had jurisdiction to grant procedural or evidential measures available under English law and which were ancillary to the proceedings. It further held that such an order did not amount to an evasion of Regulation 1206/2001/EC on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters, which entitles the courts of one Member State to obtain evidence from another Member State by means of an application to a local court: the Regulation would have applied only where there had been a request by the English court to the Greek court to take evidence in Greece, and it did not lay down an exclusive method for obtaining evidence from another Member State. As far as service was concerned, an order under CPR 71 could either be served out of the jurisdiction without permission or, where permission to serve the original claim form out of the jurisdiction was required, with the permission of the court in accordance with CPR 6.30(2).