Citation: ALL ER (D) 63 (Jun)
Nature of case: C entered into an agreement with D3 named as the counterparty. C issued proceedings against D1 as the true contracting party on the basis of the true construction of the contract, as principal to D3, that D3 was the bare nominee of D1 and/or that the contract between C and D3 was a sham. D1 and D2 applied to have permission to serve out of the jurisdiction set aside as C had no real prospect of success. The Court rejected each of the Claimant’s arguments and set aside service.
