Carr v Penman [2013] EWHC 2679 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 18 (Sep)
It was settled law that when a court was considering whether service out of the jurisdiction either should be permitted or should have been permitted, the focus of the inquiry was whether the court should assume jurisdiction over the dispute. The court had to be satisfied that:
(i) there was a serious issue to be tried;
(ii) there was a good arguable case;
(iii) the court had jurisdiction to hear it; and
(iv) England was clearly the appropriate forum.
Further, in determining whether there had been a real and substantial tort committed in the jurisdiction, in order to deal with cases justly, proportionately and to maintain a proper balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of other rights, the court was required to stop as an abuse of process defamation proceedings which served no legitimate purpose. The test had been expressed in a number of different ways, namely, whether ‘the game is worth the candle’ or whether there was any prospect of a trial yielding ‘any tangible or legitimate advantage such
