The High Court has proposed orders setting aside service of proceedings brought by Ugur Yasar, Abuzar Talibov and Kyra Senen against CCC Essen Digital GmbH and CCC Barcelona Digital Services S.L.U., finding it lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims. The proposals follow a separate judgment on the companies’ jurisdiction motions. The court’s 12 May 2025 ruling dealt with costs and set out proposed orders; it gave the parties an opportunity to address or agree variations to those orders through the Registrar.
The proposed orders would set aside service and declare that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over Yasar’s and Talibov’s claims against CCC Essen, and Senen’s claim against CCC Barcelona. The proposed basis is Article 8(1) of the EU’s Brussels I Recast Regulation for the first two cases, and Articles 8(1) and 25 for Senen’s case. If there is an appeal, the proposed jurisdiction orders would be stayed pending its determination or further direction from the Court of Appeal.
On costs of the jurisdiction motions, the judge said the first-named defendants had been entirely successful. He ordered that they receive their costs against each plaintiff, including reserved costs, to be assessed by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators if the parties cannot agree. Execution of those costs orders would be stayed if there is an appeal.
The ruling also addressed an adjournment application made for the plaintiffs at a list call-over on 25 July 2024. The application sought more time for a replying affidavit and discovery before the jurisdiction motions, which were scheduled for September. The judge said the application lasted more than an hour and a half. On 26 July, Hyland J directed that the discovery motions be heard alongside the jurisdiction motions and set preparation deadlines. The costs had been reserved.
Bradley J ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ costs associated with attending court and making submissions on 25 and 26 July, obtaining a transcript of the ruling, and lodging the jurisdiction papers that week. Those costs are payable once agreed or assessed, and the proposed order provides that they will not be stayed on appeal.
The judge declined to revisit the October 2024 costs ruling on the discovery motions or to make a new forthwith-payment order for the Talibov and Senen discovery costs. A prior order in Yasar’s discovery motion had already directed payment once those costs were agreed or assessed.