CHOPRA AND ANOTHER V BANK OF SINGAPORE LTD AND ANOTHER

[2015] EWHC 1549 (Ch), High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Mr Justice Arnold, 2 June 2015

Jurisdiction - Choice of law - Banking contracts - Consumer affairs jurisdiction - Bonds sold to consumers defaulting - Consumers' action in tort against sales representative - Service of documents on defendant under wrong name - Forum non conveniens - Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - Rome Convention 1980 - Brussels I Regulation, article 15 - Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, section 26 - Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, sections 11 and 12 - Civil Procedure Rules, rule 6.9(2)

In June and July 2008, the claimants (two private persons) each invested US$200,000 in a bond issued by FLC. The claimants' purchases were arranged by the first defendant, IAPB. FLC subsequently defaulted on the bonds. The claimants alleged that the bonds were mis-sold to them, in particular because IAPB represented that they were "quasi-Russian sovereign risk" when that was not the case. In June 2014 the claimants commenced this claim against IAPB and the second defendant OCBC, its parent company since January 2010, by issuing a claim form which in October 2014 was purportedly served upon both defendants at OCBC's premises in London. The defendants applied for: (i) a declaration that IAPB had not been served; (ii) an order striking out the claim against OCBC; and (iii) (if necessary) for a stay of the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. The claimants had made no application for permission to serve the claim form on IAPB outside the jurisdiction. The claimants relied upon three types of cause of action against IAPB: (i) misrepresentation; (ii) negligence; and (iii) statutory torts under the FSMA. The first two undisputedly raised a serious issue to be tried.