Jurisdiction - Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA

Latvia from Space

Author SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
and ORBIMAGE Public Domain Source 

 

Jane Lambert

Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Lady Justice Falk) Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1472

(21 Nov 2025)

This was an appeal by Realtime SIA ("Realtime") and Igors Veliks ("Mr Veliks") against Mr Justice Thompsell's order of 24 Jan 2025 dismissing their challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales in respect of claims for alleged breach of confidence and copyright infringement made by  Playtech Software Ltd ("Playtech") for the reasons given in his judgment in Playtech Software Ltd and another v Games Global Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 3264 (Ch) of18 Dec 2024.

The Parties

Playtech is a member of a group of companies that designs, develops and supplies online gambling games and associated software.   Another member of the group is a Latvian company called Euro Live Technologies SIA ("Euro Live").  Playtech licenses games to operators of online gambling websites. Euro Live develops games and employs developers for that purpose.

Mr Veliks is a Latvian national who lives and works in Latvia. He was employed by Euro Live in Latvia between October 2020 and July 2021. Since August 2021, he has worked for Realtime, which develops online gambling games in Riga.

The Claim

Playtech alleged that Mr Veliks had used login details to an online platform called Horizon, which hosts playable versions of its games, including some that had not been released to the general public.  Euro Live had given him those login details for the purposes of his employment.  Playtech contended that Mr Velicks had logged into Horizon some 33 times, extracted details of two of its games and passed them on to Realtime which was said to have used that information to make competing products.   Nearly all the logins had been made from devices in Latvia and none from devices in the United Kingdom.   Playtech also alleged that Mr Veliks had infringed its copyright by taking a screenshot of its logo and sending a copy of that screenshot to a colleague in England.

Service outside the Jurisdiction

As Mr Veliks and Realtime were in Latvia, CPR 6.36 required Playtech to obtain the permission of the Court to serve process on them.  A claimant must establish that 

(i) there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of its claim; 

(ii) it has a "good arguable case" that one of the jurisdictional gateways set out in para 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B applies; and 

(iii) England is the proper place in which to bring the claim in accordance with CPR 6.37 (3).

Mr Justice Thomsell's Judgment

Mr Justice Thompsell granted Playtech permission to serve Mr Veliks and Realtime in Latvia.  He held that the misuse of trade secrets and copyright claims raised serious issues to be tried.  In his view, the copyright claims satisfied Gateways 9 (claim in tort) and 11 (property within the jurisdiction), and the trade secrets claim Gateways 9 and 21 (breach of confidence).  England was the appropriate forum as English law applied.

Grounds of Appeal

Realtime and Mr Veliks appealed on two grounds:

• The judge had been wrong to hold that Playtech's claim for misuse of trade secrets satisfied either Gateway 9 or Gateway 21 because he had been wrong to hold that Playtech had a good arguable case that it had suffered direct damage in the UK by reason of the alleged misuse of trade secrets and wrong to hold that English law applied to the claim for the alleged misuse of trade secrets. 
• The judge had been wrong to hold that England and Wales was the appropriate forum for Playtech's claims.

Hearing

The appeal came before Lords Justices Arnold and Nugee and Lady Justice Falk on 23 Oct 2025. They delivered judgment in  Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA and Another [2025] EWCA Civ 1472 on 21 Nov 2025. Lord Justice Arnold delivered the lead judgment.  Lord Justice Nugee and Lady Justice Falk concurred.

Ground 1

The parties agreed that the appropriate Gateway was 21 and not 9.  Para 3.1 (27) of Practice Direction 6B requires detriment to have been or likely to be suffered within the jurisdiction or any detriment which has been or is likely to be suffered to result from an act committed or likely to be committed within the jurisdiction.   Nearly all the logins of which Playtech complained took place in Latvia and none in England.   None of the games alleged to have been developed by Realtime were downloaded in this country.  As neither wrongdoing nor damage had occurred in England, it followed that Playtech could not clear Gateway 21.

Ground 2

Mr Justice Thomsell did not rule on whether England would have been the appropriate forum for the copyright claim had it stood alone. There was very little argument on the point before the Court of Appeal.   Lord Justice Arnold concluded that Latvia would have been the appropriate forum since the claim would be one of primary infringement.  It could also determine the alleged secondary infringement claim as easily as an English court.

Comment

For the reasons set out above, the Court of Appeal allowed Mr Veliks's appeal. Although most of the discussion was on CPR6.36 and para 3.1, Lord Justice Arnold did consider the substantive law between paras [15] and [23].  He also distinguished the appeal before him from the Court's earlier decision in Celgard LLC v Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1293, [2021] FSR 1. Anyone wishing to discuss this case note is welcome to call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact page at any other time.