Background
Sucden Financial Limited brought proceedings against TMT Metals AG, Prateek Gupta and Mine Craft Limited arising from events more than four years earlier and involving allegations of dishonesty. Gupta challenged the English court’s jurisdiction, but Robin Knowles J dismissed his application to set aside permission to serve him outside the jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Gupta’s jurisdictional appeal in an earlier judgment, [2026] EWCA Civ 986. The present judgment addressed the timetable pending any attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court. Gupta sought to postpone both his further acknowledgment of service and his defence until the jurisdiction issue was finally resolved, arguing that filing a further acknowledgment would constitute acceptance of jurisdiction under CPR 11(8). Sucden opposed delaying the defence and offered not to treat Gupta’s participation as submission to jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal extended the deadline for Gupta’s further acknowledgment of service until 14 days after the relevant Supreme Court appeal period expired, permission was refused, or any permitted appeal was finally resolved. That protection was necessary because CPR 11(8) expressly treats the filing of a further acknowledgment as acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction.
The court nevertheless held that Gupta could be required to serve his defence while pursuing a Supreme Court appeal. His defence was due within 28 days after sealing of the Court of Appeal’s order, subject to any extension granted by the Commercial Court. The court concluded that filing a defence or taking other directed procedural steps need not amount to submission to jurisdiction and would not deprive Gupta of the later choice to leave the claim undefended if his jurisdiction challenge ultimately failed.
That accelerated timetable depended on Sucden undertaking not to characterize Gupta’s compliance as submission to jurisdiction and to indemnify him for reasonable and proportionate compliance costs if he succeeded before the Supreme Court. If Sucden declined those undertakings, Gupta’s defence would instead be due 14 days after he filed any further acknowledgment of service.
Key Takeaways
- CPR 11(8) justified postponing the further acknowledgment of service because filing it would constitute acceptance of jurisdiction.
- A pending jurisdiction appeal does not automatically halt the action; courts may require a defence and other procedural steps while preserving the defendant’s jurisdictional position.
- Protective undertakings, including a costs indemnity if the jurisdiction appeal succeeds, can balance efficient case management against the defendant’s appeal and enforcement interests.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies how English courts may keep long-delayed litigation moving during a proposed Supreme Court jurisdiction challenge. It distinguishes the jurisdictional consequence attached by rule to a further acknowledgment of service from other participation in the proceedings.
For parties litigating cross-border claims, the judgment provides a practical model: defer the acknowledgment that would formally accept jurisdiction, require progress on the merits, and protect the challenging defendant through express non-submission and costs undertakings.