There has been little attempt to provide a full and coherent analysis of the rules governing service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction in claims concerning unjust enrichment. This lacuna has grown more noticeable since the rules were reformed in 2015, with the continuation of an excessively wide approach that had overrun the older, overly restrictive rules. This article attempts not only to provide such an analysis but also one which is able to reconcile the wording of the rules with their underlying principles and the substantive law of unjust enrichment claims – significant constraints that have received insufficient consideration in both the case law and the literature.