Mex Group Worldwide Limited vs Ford & Others – High Court – [2024] EWHC 3379 (KB) – Case Summary

High Court Denies Appeal in Complex Jurisdictional Dispute

The High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, recently handed down a significant judgment in the case of Mex Group Worldwide Limited versus Stewart Owen Ford and others, addressing complex jurisdictional issues and service of process in international litigation.

The case involved a series of defendants, including individuals and corporate entities, with the claimant, Mex Group Worldwide Limited, seeking to enforce a worldwide freezing order (WFO). The defendants, Stewart Owen Ford and others, challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to make such an order, arguing that it was contingent on the consent of the authorities in the jurisdiction where the order was to be enforced.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Freedman, examined whether it had jurisdiction to grant permission for an appeal against an earlier order dated 13 December 2024. The defendants had submitted draft grounds of appeal, questioning the court's jurisdiction, the application of the 1965 Hague Service Convention, and the burden of proof regarding the legality of service in Luxembourg.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Freedman rejected the defendants' arguments, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction to issue such orders. He referenced established legal principles, stating that court orders must be obeyed until set aside, regardless of whether they were initially contested. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the authority of court orders, especially in cases involving freezing orders, where timely service is crucial.

The defendants also argued that the service of the WFO circumvented the Hague Convention, which was dismissed by the court. Mr Justice Freedman noted that the delay inherent in Hague Convention service would undermine the purpose of the WFO, a reasoning supported by prior case law. He concluded that special circumstances justified alternative service methods.

Furthermore, the court addressed the defendants' contention regarding the burden of proof. It clarified that the claimant had adequately demonstrated that service was not contrary to Luxembourg law, supported by legal advice from Luxembourg counsel.

The judgment also touched upon procedural aspects, such as the timing of the defendants' application for permission to appeal and the court's jurisdiction to consider such applications post-judgment. Mr Justice Freedman applied the principles from a similar case, Terna Energy Trading doo v Revolut Ltd, to determine that the court retained jurisdiction to consider the appeal application.

Ultimately, the High Court found no real prospect of success for the appeal and no compelling reason for it to proceed. The defendants were advised they could still file an appellant's notice within the stipulated timeframe.

This case underscores the complexities of jurisdictional disputes in international litigation and the High Court's approach to enforcing its orders across borders. Practitioners in the field of international litigation and those dealing with cross-border service of process will find this case particularly relevant.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.