REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz

Back in early 2011, I was one of the editors involved in considering the then forthcoming April 2011 changes to CPR 6.7.

One of the key points of interest was the potential effect of the requirement to serve domestic proceedings (that is, proceedings issued for service within the jurisdiction) out of the jurisdiction in accordance with CPR 6.7(2) or CPR 6.7(3). CPR 6.7(2) is the provision dealing with service on a solicitor in Scotland or Northern Ireland or EEA state other than the United Kingdom. CPR 6.7(3) deals with service on a European Lawyer in any EEA state.

What, we wondered, would the position be where a UK defendant company had served a notice under CPR 6.7(2) or CPR 6.7(3) requiring domestic proceedings to be served out of the jurisdiction, but the claimant (understandably) wished to effect service within the jurisdiction instead under section 1139(1) of the Companies Act 2006? Continue reading

REUTERS | Maxim Shemetov

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in JSC Mezhdunarodiny Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev has provided a welcome recap of the court’s approach to freezing orders over trust assets, and the circumstances in which a respondent can be ordered to provide information about assets which may or may not be susceptible to a freezing order. It also addresses the circumstances in which a foreign claimant will be required to fortify a cross-undertaking as to damages. Continue reading