Background
Hume Street Management Consultants Limited (the Claimant) brought a £3.6 million claim against the former Prime Minister of Qatar (the First Defendant) and connected companies (Second and Third Defendants) for failing to pay for the project management services alleged to have been provided by the Claimant.
The Claimant issued a formal Letter of Claim ("LOC") on 11 October 2024. It was alleged in the LOC that, in September 2015, a Director of the Claimant, Mr McKillen, met with the First Defendant to discuss the renovation of Forbes House, one of London's largest homes. He wished for his property to be redeveloped to "a spectacular quality, specifically to the same standard as Claridge's Hotel". The LOC stated that an oral agreement was made that the Claimant would be responsible for the management of the redevelopment works at Forbes House and that the Claimant began providing services thereafter. As far as remuneration for such services, the LOC stated that this was not discussed at the meeting at the request of the First Defendant. Ultimately, the Claimant contended that the contract was terminated by the First and/or Second Defendant and, in doing so, refused to allow the Claimant to provide services or accessing Forbes House.
The Claimant raised proceedings against the Defendants on the basis that the Defendants breached the contract in failing to pay the Claimant any sum for the services rendered. Their alternative position was a claim for restitution for the unjustified enrichment provided to the Defendants by the Claimant.
The Claimant sought permission to serve the Claim Form, Particulars of the Claim, and accompanying paperwork out of jurisdiction and via alternative means on the First Defendant, by way of first-class post and WhatsApp message. In response, the Defendants applied for an order, pursuant to Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), to have the purported service of the Claim Form and the related documentation set aside.
Legal issues
In considering the Claimant's application to authorise the service of the Claim Form out of jurisdiction and via alternative means, the Court must be satisfied that the claim has a real prospect of success. The Court does so by analysing the pleadings and any supplementary documentation provided by the Claimant.
As this was a contractual claim, the Court firstly sought to establish whether a contractual relationship existed between the parties. The Court referenced Practice Direction 16 of the CPR which addresses the requirements for an oral contract:-
“7.4 Where a claim is based upon an oral agreement, the particulars of claim should set out the contractual words used and state by whom, to whom, when and where they were spoken.
7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done."
In respect of the Claimant's alternative claim for restitution, the Court identified that the Claimant must demonstrate the following:-
- The Defendants have been enriched;
- At the expense of the Claimant; and
- The services provided to Defendants by the Claimant were unjustly received.
The Court's findings
- Prospects of success: The Claimant failed to demonstrate that there was a real prospect of success for their case. The Court commented that their pleadings were incoherent and lacked explanation which did not "inspire confidence in the strength of the claim".
- Contractual claim: The Claimant's pleadings lacked sufficient evidence to support the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, either by way of an oral contract or a contract by conduct.
- Restitutionary claim: Similarly, the Claimant could not show that the Defendants were unjustly enriched at their expense. The Court accepted that whilst the Claimant may well have incurred expense in connection with the services provided to the Defendants, they failed to show with any coherence or conviction that such expense was indeed incurred unjustly and/or there was a relevant and joint understanding of these services between the parties.
- Alternative service: The Claimant's reasoning for requiring service out of jurisdiction and via alternative means was that to, to their knowledge, the First Defendant does not have a single "usual" residence and there was a court backlog in processing foreign applications. The Court held that a standard delay in serving proceedings in Qatar did not constitute a good reason to depart from the conventional methods of service.
Decision
The Court ultimately found in the First Defendant's favour, granting their order to have the service of the Claim Form and the associated documentation set aside and rejected the Claimant's application to serve the papers out of jurisdiction and via alternative means.
Commentary
This decision highlights the Court's stringent approach to the service of court documentation and that alternative methods will not be permitted freely. Delays in serving proceedings overseas do not automatically justify service by unconventional means, such as via WhatsApp. The risks associated with service via digital means such as WhatsApp are to some extent self-evident, but include privacy concerns that the message could be intercepted or accessed by unauthorised parties. Additionally, unlike traditional methods of services, there is no guaranteed proof of delivery to ensure the intended recipient actually received the papers.
Beyond this, this case reiterates the need to clearly articulate the reasoning of cases being advanced in the TCC, by reference to relevant evidence. The judge in this case specifically commented:
- "the case is incoherent in that the way the matter is put appears to change with every iteration and without explanation. That does not inspire confidence in the strength of the claim";
- "HSMC have not really sought to engage with, let alone satisfy the court, that there is a serious issue to be tried to the effect that a contract was entered into between HSMC and one or more of these defendants"; and
- "the various formulations of the case really amount to little more than assertions of the result for which HSMC contend, without much in the way of explanation as to how such result is arrived at".
Our Construction team can provide commercially focused advice in relation to properly formulating claims and meeting the stringent requirements of applications such as those faced in Hume Street Management Consultants Ltd v Al-Thani & Ors [2025] EWHC 404 (TCC). If you would like to discuss the article further please contact Stephen McGuigan and Alice Flynn.
