[2025] EWHC 404 (TCC)

On 23^rd July 2004 the Claimant (“HSMC”) applied, inter alia, for permission to serve a Claim Form out of the jurisdiction, and/or for an order for alternative service on the First Defendant (“HBJ”).

Pepperall, J dealt with this application (by then somewhat amended) on 27^th September 2024, at a without notice hearing. So far as material, he ordered that:

“1.

The Claimant do have permission to serve the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim and any other document in these proceedings on the First and Third Defendants out of the jurisdiction.

2.

The Claimant do have permission to serve the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim and any other document in these proceedings on the First Defendant by:

2.1

first-class post to 67 Brook Street, London, United Kingdom, W1K 4NJ; and

2.2

by WhatsApp message with PDFs of the relevant documents to the First Defendant at the number disclosed in Mr Bunting’s evidence.”

By an application dated 8^th October 2024, the Defendants sought orders as follows:

“(1)

The First and Third Defendants seek an order pursuant to CPR Part 11 setting aside purported service of the Claim Form on them.

(2)

The First and Third Defendants seek an order pursuant to CPR Part 11 and paragraph 12 of the Order of Pepperall J dated 27 September 2024 (the “Pepperall Order”) that the orders granting permission to serve the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim and any other document in these proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction be set aside.

(3)

The First Defendant seeks an order pursuant to CPR r. 23.10 and/or CPR r. 3.1 that the Pepperall Order granting the Claimant permission to serve him by alternative means be set aside.”

The Second Defendant (“Lomakx”) also applied for various other relief but these matters were resolved by agreement.

I deal in this Judgment with the remaining applications as follows:

Section IV of CPR Part 6 and the accompanying Practice Direction 6B set out the regime and procedure for service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction. It is common ground that it is for the applicant to show that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim. This means that there has to be a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success on the claim.

In this connection, the materials to be considered are the proposed pleadings and associated supportive evidence. The court should not, of course, conduct a mini trial: see HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2021] UKSC 3 at [22]:

“22.

…Where… there are particulars of claim, the analytical focus should be on the particulars of claim and whether, on the basis that the facts there alleged are true, the cause of action asserted has a real prospect of success. Any particulars of claim or witness statement setting out details of the claim will be supported by a statement of truth. Save in cases where allegations of fact are demonstrably untrue or unsupportable, it is generally not appropriate for a defendant to dispute the facts alleged through evidence of its own. Doing so may well just show that there is a triable issue.”

The present claim is put in contract, alternatively restitution/quantum meruit. As to the former, Practice Direction 16—Statements of Case provides the following requirements:

“7.4

Where a claim is based upon an oral agreement, the particulars of claim should set out the contractual words used and state by whom, to whom, when and where they were spoken.

7.5

Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.”

As to restitution/quantum meruit, it is common ground that a claimant must show that there is a serious issue to be tried on three relevant ingredients:

On 30^th November 2023, HSMC’s solicitors wrote to HBJ and the Second Defendant seeking payment of an invoice of £3.69m said to arise out of the redevelopment of Forbes House, 10 Halkin Street, London SW1. The contractual basis of the claim was said to be as follows:

“PMcK agreed with his partner HBJ to project manage the renovation and construction of Forbes House. PMcK was requested to take on this role due to the extensive experience and knowledge in delivering fast track complicated projects on time and under budget. HBJ made several requests to PMcK to take on Forbes House, before PMcK finally agreed”

(the reference to PMcK is to Mr Paddy McKillen).

On 28^th June 2024 the Claim Form was issued against HBJ and Lomakx in the following terms:

“1.

This is a claim in respect of project management services carried out by Mr Patrick McKillen, through the Claimant company, in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House, 10 Halkin Street, London SW1 (“Forbes House”), one of the largest private homes in London.

2.

The First Defendant is Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Mohammed bin Thani Al Thani (“HBJ”), the former Prime Minister of Qatar and the ultimate beneficial owner of Forbes House. The Second Defendant is Lomakx Limited, a company controlled and/or ultimately beneficially owned by HBJ.

3.

By a contract agreed orally and/or by conduct in or around June 2016, the Claimant agreed to carry out project management services for the First Defendant and/or Second Defendant in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House and is and was entitled to a reasonable sum for those services.

4.

From 2016 the Claimant carried out project management services in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House (the “Services”). On or around 22 April 2022, when the redevelopment works were still ongoing, the First and/or Second Defendant terminated the contract and/or refused to allow further performance of services by the Claimant by preventing the Claimant from accessing Forbes House.

5.

The Claimant is entitled to and claims a reasonable sum for the Services. Wrongfully, and in breach of contract, the Defendants have failed to pay the Claimant any sum for the Services.

6.

Further, or in the alternative, the First and/or Second Defendant has been enriched by the Services, which were carried out at the Claimant’s expense, and that enrichment is and was unjust. The Claimant is entitled to and claims a reasonable sum for the Services, by way of restitution.”

On 4^th September 2024, HSMC purported to amend the Claim Form (without permission) by adding Forbes House Limited as a Third Defendant and amending the text of the Claim Form so that it now read as follows:

“2.

The First Defendant is Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Mohammed bin Thani Al Thani (“HBJ”), the former Prime Minister of Qatar and the ultimate beneficial owner of Forbes House. The Second Defendant is Lomakx Limited, a company controlled and/or ultimately beneficially owned by HBJ. The Third Defendant is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and is the legal owner of Forbes House.

3.

By a contract or contracts agreed orally and/or by conduct in or around June 2016September 2015 in respect of the First and Third Defendants and April 2016 in respect of the Second Defendant, the Claimant agreed to carry out project management services for the First Defendant and/or Second Defendant and/or Third Defendant in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House and is and was entitled to a reasonable sum for those services.

4.

From around September 2015 in respect of the First and Third Defendants and from around April 2016 in respect of the Second Defendant2016 the Claimant carried out project management services in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House (the “Services”). On or around 22 April 2022, when the redevelopment works were still ongoing, the First and/or Second and/or Third Defendant terminated the contract and/or refused to allow further performance of services by the Claimant by preventing the Claimant from accessing Forbes House.”

The application before Pepperall, J was supported by a witness statement from Mr Bunting, a solicitor acting for HSMC. He said as follows at paragraph 7:

“In or around September 2015, by a contract agreed orally and/or by conduct, the Claimant agreed to carry out project management services (the “Services”) for the First and/or Third Defendant in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House. By a contract agreed orally and/or by conduct in or around April 2016, the Claimant also agreed to carry out the Services for the Second Defendant. The Claimant in fact rendered the Services to the First and Third Defendants between September 2015 and April 2022 and to the Second Defendant between April 2016 (following its incorporation) and April 2022.”

As I have already noted, the order was made on 27^th September 2024.

Thereafter, on 11^th October 2024, HSMC served a formal letter of claim. This stated, inter alia: