The Supreme Court has restored Michael Power’s proceedings against Swedish telecoms company Telia Company AB and partly restored his proceedings against Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development SA after clarifying the legal test for renewing expired summonses.
Power, who had worked as chief financial officer of CJSC Indigo Tajikistan, brought personal injury proceedings in July 2019 and separate protected-disclosure proceedings in February 2020. Difficulties then arose over serving the foreign defendants and whether the summonses could be renewed after expiry.
The Court of Appeal had set aside the renewals against Telia and against the Aga Khan company, treating Power’s failure to obtain High Court permission for overseas service as fatal.
Mr Justice Woulfe held that this was based on an incorrect interpretation of Order 11A of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Where defendants fall within the EU Brussels regime or the Lugano Convention, the requirement to seek permission under Order 11 applies only to co-defendants outside those regimes, not automatically to every defendant in mixed proceedings.
The Supreme Court also clarified that renewal involves one overall question: whether there are “special circumstances which justify an extension”. Courts should consider the circumstances relied upon together with prejudice, hardship and the interests of justice rather than treating them as rigidly separate stages.
For Telia, the court held that the Swedish receiving authority’s unexplained delay in serving the personal injuries summons amounted to special circumstances. Telia had also received early notice of the claim, reducing any prejudice. Its protected-disclosure summons had actually been served before expiry.
The position differed for Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development. Power had taken no steps to serve the personal injuries summons in Switzerland under the Hague Convention before it expired, so its renewal remained set aside.
However, the protected-disclosure summons had been served before expiry, albeit irregularly. The court held that a widespread misunderstanding of the service rules, combined with the absence of real prejudice, justified preserving that summons.
The precise final orders remained subject to further submissions.