Barrowfen Properties v Patel & Ors

An application to extend time for payment under an interim costs order requires evidence addressing the applicant’s financial position and explaining the relevant non-compliance. Collateral family disputes, allegations of misconduct and proposed investigations outside the pleaded issues do not justify an extension. Even where inability to pay is established, any indulgence must remain proportionate and limited to the evidence and circumstances relied upon.

The claimant and the second defendant had obtained disclosure orders against the first and third defendants, including orders for payments on account of costs and compliance with disclosure obligations. The first defendant applied for more time, relying on medical matters, alleged misconduct by family members, financial difficulties and proposed investigations concerning a Singapore company.

The application was determined on paper after further evidence was permitted. The central issues were whether the evidence justified extending time for the two payments and whether any further relief should be granted in respect of other provisions of the order.

1. Limited extension. The application was granted only to the extent that time for compliance with the two specified payment obligations was extended until 4.30 pm on 25 November 2020.
2. The court could not resolve the wider factual allegations raised in the evidence. In any event, those matters were irrelevant to whether time should be extended. At most, they provided background or an explanation for the alleged inability to make the interim payments.
3. The applicant had produced no bank statements or other financial information establishing inability to pay or explaining his financial position. The additional time previously allowed for that evidence had not been used.
4. Even if inability to pay had been demonstrated, an extension of more than 28 days was highly unlikely to have been justified. In the circumstances, only seven further days were allowed. The defendants’ failure to comply with other paragraphs of the order was not excused.
5. The court refused to entertain requests for appointment of an investigative body or permission to contact Singapore authorities or liquidators. It lacked jurisdiction to appoint an investigator for matters outside the pleaded allegations, and the requests confirmed the collateral nature of the evidence.
6. There was no order as to the costs of the application, but the claimant was given permission to apply for its costs, including additional service costs. The judgment and accompanying order were to be served by post.