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

Mr. McCourt Fritz points to the fact that the response of Mr. Hill when he received the claim and other documents which it is alleged were properly served on him, was to acknowledge service and seek an extension of time to file a defence. There was in fact no indication until the service of the application on 6 March that there would be a challenge to service, and hence jurisdiction.

I have been referred to the judgment of the then Chancellor in Global Multimedia International Ltd v ARA Media Services [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) where he said at para 28:

“Thus the test to be applied is an objective one and what must be determined is whether the only possible explanation for the conduct relied on is an intention on the part of the defendant to have the case tried in England.”

He then set out a number of factors in that case which pointed to a common law waiver including seeking an extension of time for the defence and there being no indication of a jurisdiction challenge until there was a change of heart after counsel was instructed.

Mr. Collings distinguishes the cases on common law waiver as applying to cases relating to territorial jurisdiction but I can see nothing in them which suggests this is the case, and Hoddinott indicates that a challenge to jurisdiction is not confined to territorial jurisdiction, albeit in a different context.

In light of my judgment in respect of CPR 11, this is academic but I would also have held that Mr. Hill had waived his right to object to the Court having jurisdiction in light of his indication that he was going to defend the claim vigorously and his request for an extension to file a defence.