Nicholas Craig KC and Anne Jeavons Act in landmark Court of Appeal ruling on jurisdiction and service

On 19 February 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC [2026] EWCA 139, setting aside service effected under the postal rules in CPR 6.9 and affirming that it is a fundamental rule of English procedure and jurisdiction that a person may only be served with process in England and Wales if they are present in the territorial jurisdiction or have submitted to it. The Court held that it is presence, and not residence, that is the touchstone of territorial jurisdiction.

The Court rejected the argument that the common law rule had been abrogated by the terms of the Civil Procedure Rules, holding that presence within the jurisdiction is a substantive jurisdictional requirement. The Court further held that whilst temporary physical absence from the jurisdiction will not necessarily negate presence, the concept of temporary absence for this purpose must be kept within relatively narrow grounds.

In the context, specifically, of sanctions, the Court further accepted that where a defendant is the subject of sanctions preventing him from returning, it is legally incoherent for the state to claim jurisdiction over a defendant on the ground of his presence in the jurisdiction, whilst at the same time denying him the right to be present there.

The decision thus makes clear that service at a ‘last known residence’ within the jurisdiction under CPR 6.9 is not available where a defendant has left the jurisdiction. A claimant in such circumstances will need to first satisfy the service out jurisdictional gateways, before seeking an order for substituted service at such address.

3VB’s Nicholas Craig KC and Anne Jeavons acted for the appellant, instructed by Roger Gherson and Emma Anderson of Gherson LLP.