The claimants were pensioners, predominantly domiciled in England and Wales. They alleged that they had been given pension transfer application forms by an unregulated intermediary (M), which operated within the jurisdiction. M was said to have been in a commercial relationship with the defendant, a Gibraltar-registered professional trustee company. The claimants argued that the defendant had breached its fiduciary duty, as well as duties owed in contract and in tort. In short, as the claimants alleged, they had begun with valuable pension rights and, because of M’s activities, had ended with simply being party to offshore pension arrangements with the defendant, invested in unregulated schemes of little or no value. Proceedings were instituted on 30 September 2020 (prior to the end of the implementation period for the UK’s exit from the EU). The judge at first instance, in response to the defendant’s application to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court under CPR Pt 11, concluded that the claimants did not have a good arguable case that the proceedings fell within Art.13(3) of the Brussels Convention 19682—concerning consumer contracts—and so decided that the courts of the defendant’s domicile had jurisdiction.