Law360 Canada ( November 27, 2024, 1:57 PM EST) -- Appeal by Defendants from chambers judge's (judge) determination that British Columbia court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action and defendants had attorned. The underlying cause of action, in debt, arose in connection with an alleged agreement between the Defendant VM Agritech Limited (VM), a UK corporation, and Voice Mobility International Inc. (Voice), a Vancouver-based company. The Defendant, Wightman, was a director of VM and resided in the UK; the Plaintiff, Smith, was a shareholder of Voice and resided in Vancouver. The Plaintiff alleged that VM and Voice (a Vancouver-based company) entered into an agreement for VM to acquire Voice. As part of this transaction, Wightman retained the Vancouver office of Cassels Brock (Cassels) to provide legal services to VM, with VM responsible for paying Cassels’ accounts. VM failed to pay Cassels' invoices totaling $24,155. Smith paid $12,000 to Cassels in exchange for an assignment of the debt. The Plaintiff attempted to serve the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) on the Defendants in the UK. The Defendants filed a jurisdictional response and applied to set aside the service and dismiss or stay the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA). The judge found that there were several connecting factors with British Columbia, establishing a substantial connection and the court's jurisdiction. The judge declined to extend the time for the Defendants to serve their application under Supreme Court Civil Rules (SCCR) rule 21-8(5) and declared that they had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by filing their application. The Defendants challenged the judge's findings on the court's jurisdiction under the CJPTA, the conclusion that they attorned to the jurisdiction, and the exercise of discretion in denying an extension of time....