03/02/2020 Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Anor [2014] EWHC 2808 (QB) (31 July 2014) (2) The claimant must satisfy the court that there is a good arguable case that the claim against the foreign defendant falls within one or more of the classes of case for which leave to serve out of the jurisdiction may be given. "Good arguable case" in this context means that the claimant has a much better argument than the foreign defendant. Where a question of law arises in connection with the dispute about service out of the jurisdiction and that question of law goes to the existence of the jurisdiction, e.g. whether a claim falls within one of the classes set out in paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B, then the court will normally decide the question of law as opposed to seeing whether there is a good arguable case on that issue of law. (3) The claimant must satisfy the court that, in all the circumstances, England is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute and that the court ought to exercise its discretion to permit service of the proceedings out of the jurisdiction. Where a claimant seeks leave to serve proceedings on a foreign defendant out of the jurisdiction, the task of the court is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice. In such a case, the burden is on the claimant to persuade the court that England is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum. 11. For the claimant, Mr. Tomlinson QC relies on three of the jurisdictional gateways set out at paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B: "(2) A claim is made for an injunction ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing an act within the jurisdiction. (3) A claim is made against a person ('the defendant') on whom the claim form has been or will be served (otherwise than in reliance on this paragraph) and (a) there is between the claimant and the defendant a real issue which it is reasonable for the court to try; and (b) the claimant wishes to serve the claim form on another person who is a necessary or proper party to that claim. (9) A claim is made in tort where (a) damage was sustained within the jurisdiction; or (b) the damage sustained resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction." 12. In relation to the injunction gateway (paragraph 3.1(2)), the discretion to grant permission will not be exercised unless (a) an injunction is a genuine part of the substantive relief sought and has not been claimed merely to bring the case within the rule and (b) there is a reasonable prospect of an injunction being granted. 13. In relation to claims in tort, paragraph 3.1(9), the claimant must show that his claim is founded on a tort and either (a) damage has been sustained within the jurisdiction or (b) damage has resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. Requirement (b) obliges the court to look at the tort alleged in a common sense way and ask whether damage has resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction regardless of whether or not such acts had been committed elsewhere. "3.1(2) A claim is made for an injunction ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing an act within the jurisdiction." 14. The first point made on this issue by Mr. Caldecott QC for the second defendant is that it is necessary to show a real basis for anticipating that the conduct complained of will be continued or repeated. He submits that, although there is some evidence of a threat to repeat by the first defendant, there appears to have been little activity since October 2013, and also points out that, since being notified of the www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2808.html 3/4