[2025] EWHC 2485 (Ch)
Chancery Division of the High Court

[2025] EWHC 2485 (Ch)

Fecha: 03-Oct-2025

Should the court set aside the permission to serve out?

Should the court set aside the permission to serve out?

72.

Even if I were wrong about this, and the proceedings were served on Iftikhar (and Sarfraz) in Pakistan, a further question would arise, and that is whether Vaqar can retain the benefit of that service when he has not complied with the procedural requirements attaching to orders obtained ex parte granting permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. I set out these procedural requirements earlier. They arise both from statutory rules, such as CPR rule 23.9, and case law such as Interoute Telecommunications (UK) Ltd. v Fashion Gossip Ltd, The Times, 10 November 1999, and Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2006] FSR 36. The case law makes clear how important it is that these rules are observed.

73.

It is clear from the emails passing between Iftikhar’s solicitors and Vaqar’s solicitors in December 2024, and then between Iftikhar’s solicitors and Vaqar in January 2025 that Vaqar has not complied with these requirements. Moreover, Vaqar was represented by solicitors until January 2025 and therefore presumably was advised of his obligations in this regard. His outright refusal to comply is accordingly all the more serious.

74.

CPR rule 3.1(7) provides that

“A power of the court under these Rules to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order.”

And CPR rule 11(6) (already set out above) relevantly provides that

“An order containing a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction or will not exercise its jurisdiction may also make further provision including –

[ … ]

(c)

discharging any order made before the claim was commenced or before the claim form was served … ” 

75.

In my judgment, Vaqar’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements is so blatant and so serious that, if I had held that Iftikhar had been served at his home in Lahore pursuant to the permission to serve out of the jurisdiction granted by the Deputy Master, I would have set aside that order granting permission. The result, once again, would have been that Iftikhar could not have been validly served in accordance with the procedural rules.