In Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd and another – Butterworths Law Direct 25.1.07 the Claimant had obtained permission to serve its claim form outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.21. In support of that application, the Claimant’s solicitor provided a statement contending that the action had a reasonable prospect of success, but no further evidence addressing the merits of the underlying case was adduced in support of the application. The first Defendant issued an application by which it challenged the decision to allow the Claimant to serve outside the jurisdiction, and the second Defendant sought to have the claim against it struck out on the basis that the particulars of claim pleaded no facts upon which a proper cause of action could have been based.
The Chancery court held that in order to satisfy the requirements under CPR 6.21, an application for permission to serve outside the jurisdiction had to have been supported by evidence that addressed the merits of the underlying case, and demonstrated the existence of a serious issue to be tried. In this case, the Claimant had failed to adduce any evidence addressing the merits of its alleged infringement case against the first Defendant. Accordingly, there had been insufficient evidence of a serious issue to be tried, and, the Claimant’s application for permission should have been refused.
It also held that the general requirements for pleadings, contained within CPR 16.4 and the Practice Direction, namely that a party’s particulars of claim had to include a concise statement of the facts which were said to have given rise to the party’s cause of action, had not been complied with and so the actions against both Defendants were struck out.