Case number: BL-2024-001074 - [2025] EWHC 2954 (Ch)

Mr. Hill’s primary argument is that he has never been properly served, and therefore the claim is a nullity and that is an end to the matter: the Court need not go on to consider any of the other arguments. There is evidence from the process server and Mrs. Hill in relation to this as well as expert evidence from two Floridian lawyers.

On the other hand Mr. McCourt Fritz for the Trustees argues that this is in effect a dispute as to the jurisdiction of the court and a defendant who wishes to dispute the court’s jurisdiction to try a claim must apply to the court for an order declaring that it does not have such jurisdiction within 14 days of filing his acknowledgment of service supported by evidence (CPR r.11(4)). Failure to do so will result in his being treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction. Mr. Hill has not complied with these rules and so it is argued he has lost his right to challenge jurisdiction.

The Trustees also argue that by his actions, Mr. Hill has waived his rights at common law to challenge jurisdiction.

On the basis that it is still open to Mr. Hill to challenge jurisdiction, and he is not within the time limited by Deputy Master Linwood to apply to set aside, the question arises as to whether the approach of the Court to extending time should be on the basis that he requires relief from sanctions or on the basis of the overriding objective.

If time is extended the question is whether there are grounds for setting aside the order made by Deputy Master Linwood extending time for service, in part. That involves amongst other things some consideration of whether there are limitation issues in respect of some of the claims which have been brought against Mr. Hill.

The Trustees’ fall back position if he was not properly served is that he was served on February 19 when documents were forwarded electronically to his solicitors who had indicated their willingness to accept service.

Counsel approached these issues in a different order depending on their respective cases: Mr. Collings dealt with the question of whether service had been effected first on the basis that if it had not, that was an end to the matter. Mr. McCourt Fritz dealt with the question of whether it was open to Mr. Hill to take a point on service having served an acknowledgment of Service but failed to make an application within 14 days under CPR 11(1) therefore being deemed to accept the court’s jurisdiction or whether there was a common law waiver of the question of jurisdiction.

It seems sensible to me to deal with the question of CPR r.11 and common law waiver first.