05/02/2020 Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016) his case. It was discussed in some detail in Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson at Lufkin and Jenrett Inc. [1990] 1 QB 391. Slade LJ said 436(d) and (f): "In our judgment, if the draftsman of pleading intended to be served out of the jurisdiction under Ord. 11, r. 1(1)(f) or indeed any other sub-paragraph can be reasonably understood as presenting a particular head of claim on one specific legal basis only, the plaintiff cannot thereafter, for the purpose of justifying his application under Ord. 11, r. 1(1)(f), be permitted to contend that that head of claim can also be justified on another legal basis (unless, perhaps, the alternative basis has been specifically referred to in his affidavit evidence, which was not in the present case). With this possible exception, if he specifically states in his pleading the legal result of what he has pleaded, he has in our judgment limited to what he has pleaded, for the purpose of an Ord. 11 application. To permit him to take a different course would be to encourage circumvention of the Ord. 11 procedure, which is designed to ensure that both the court is fully and clearly apprised as to the nature of the legal claim with which it is invited to deal on the ex parte application, the defendant is likewise apprised as to the nature of the claim which he has to meet, if and when he seeks discharge in order for a service out of the jurisdiction." [45] In Al Sadi and Others v Al Sadi and Others [2011] EWHC 976 (Comm) Beatson J confirmed at paragraph [38] that it remained a binding authority in England and Wales despite the introduction of the CPR regime: "The thrust of Mr Cooper's submissions are that the Parker v Shuller jurisprudence was a product of the pre-CPR age. He in effect submitted that it would be a triumph for formalism if a defendant who had been served out is entitled to have the Order set aside only for the claimant to immediately given permission to serve him again with an amended claim. He submitted the proper approach is to allow the amended claim but to make an appropriate order for costs. I have noted that the Parker v Shuller principle has been applied in the context of CPR and thus reject the first part of Mr Cooper's submission." [46] The CPR regime in England and Wales is based on the same over-arching imperative contained in Order 1 Rule 1(A) of the RSC (NI), namely: "The overriding objective 1(A). (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Court to deal with cases justly. (2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as it is reasonably practicable (a) ensuring that the parties are on equal footing; (b) saving expense; (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to – (i) the amount of money involved; (ii) the importance of the case; (iii) the complexity of the issues; (iv) the financial position of each party; (d) ensuring it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016).htm 12/26