On Friday 15 May 2026, the London Circuit Commercial Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a pre-action disclosure application made under CPR 31.16 in the context of anticipated claims by a Romanian company, Pandora Prod SRL (“Pandora”), against Authentic Brands Group LLC (“ABG”). ABG is registered in Delaware.
Pandora applied for pre-action disclosure in support of anticipated claims in misrepresentation and conspiracy. Those claims were said to arise out of the provision by ABG to No Ordinary Designer Label (“NODL”), part of the Ted Baker group and then a subsidiary of ABG, of a comfort letter in connection with the finalisation of its 2022 accounts. The comfort letter was passed to Pandora by NODL, and Pandora’s application sought pre-action disclosure of all correspondence between ABG and NODL leading to the preparation of the comfort letter and its provision to Pandora.
HHJ Bird dismissed Pandora’s application. In an ex tempore judgment, the Judge applied the guidance given by Nugee LJ in Hand Held Products Inc v Zebra Technologies Europe Ltd [2022] EWHC 640 (Ch) and decided that service of the application notice on ABG Europe (UK) Limited (an indirect subsidiary of ABG) was invalid, because ABG Europe (UK) Limited was not a representative of ABG for the purposes of CPR 6.9(2)(7). The Judge also decided that ABG had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the English Court and awarded ABG its costs of the Application.
Hannah Glover and Joe Johnson, instructed by Slaughter and May, acted for the successful respondent, ABG.