05/02/2020 Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016) (c) the claim is brought against a person duly served within or out of the jurisdiction and a person out of the jurisdiction's necessary or proper person thereto; … (f) the claim is founded on a tort and the damage was sustained, or resulted from an act committed, within the jurisdiction." Rule 11(4) states: "Application for, and grant of, leave to serve writ out of jurisdiction 4. - (1) An application for the grant of leave under rule 1(1) must be supported by an affidavit stating(a) the grounds on which the application is made, (b) that in the deponent's belief the plaintiff has a good cause of action, (c) in what place or country the defendant is or probably may be found, and (d) where the application is made under rule 1(1)(c), the grounds for the deponent's belief that there is between the plaintiff and the person on whom a writ or notice of a writ has been served a real issue which the plaintiff may reasonably ask the Court to try. (2) No such leave shall be granted unless it shall be made sufficiently to appear to the Court that the case is a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction under this Order." [36] The plaintiff has a duty when making an application ex parte of uberrimae fidei: see Brennan v Lokyer [1932] IR 101. In effect this means the plaintiff must disclose everything which casts doubt on his case. It is unreasonable to expect him to anticipate all the arguments or points which might be raised against his case: see Electric Furnace Co v SELAS Corp of America [1987] RPC 23. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th Edition) at 11-142 referring to cardinal points which have been emphasised in the decided cases, say: "First, the court ought to be cautious in allowing the process to be served on a foreigner out of England. This has frequently been said to be because service out of the jurisdiction is an interference with sovereignty of other countries … . Secondly, if there is any doubt in the construction of any of the heads of jurisdiction, that doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the defendant. Thirdly, since the application for permission is made without notice to the defendant a full and fair disclosure of all relevant facts ought to be made." Eady J in Metropolitan Schools Ltd v Design Technica Corporations RPN [2011] 1 WLR 1772 at paragraph 121 said: "As long ago as a decision in Societe Generale de Paris v Dreyfus Bros [1885] 29 ChD 239, the court was acknowledging how serious it was for a foreigner to be troubled by English proceedings. In the light of this, it was said, at page 243, that the court ought to be exceedingly careful before it allows a writ to be served out of the jurisdiction." Burton J in Network Telecom (Europe) Ltd v Telephone Systems International Inc. [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 418 at paragraph 566 said as follows: file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016).htm 9/26