Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v GW Pharma Limited & Anor.

Jurisdictional challenges are important interlocutory matters that should be handled briskly, quickly and cheaply. A party seeking an extension must explain clearly why additional time is required and demonstrate any exceptional reason for relying on particular expert evidence. Evidence must be adapted to the procedural timetable. In ordinary forum conveniens disputes, evidence from suitably qualified lawyers involved in the litigation may be sufficient. Costs must also remain proportionate to the nature and scale of the application.

The defendants applied for an extension of time to file and serve a jurisdictional challenge, supported by evidence, in proceedings concerning a confidential agreement. They sought until 14 January 2022, relying in part on the proposed instruction of eminent expert judges. The claimant accepted that some extension was appropriate but proposed 17 December 2021.

The court considered the proposed jurisdictional objections, including a possible forum conveniens, comity and so-called weak Mozambique point. The central issues were whether the requested extension was justified and what procedural timetable and costs order should follow.

1. Application for extension. The defendants had not provided sufficient clarity as to the jurisdictional points relied on or why the evidence required the additional time sought. The pleaded case did not, on its face, give rise to a Mozambique point, and the dispute appeared to be an ordinary forum conveniens dispute involving defendants resident in England.
2. Procedural timetable. Jurisdictional disputes should be determined briskly, quickly and cheaply. Evidence must be cut to fit the procedural timetable unless there is a clear and good reason why only a particular expert or experts can provide it. The defendants had not shown that an extension into January was necessary or that suitably qualified expert lawyers could not address the relevant issues.
3. The defendants were therefore ordered to file and serve their jurisdictional challenge and supporting evidence by midday on 24 December 2021. The claimant’s response was to remain due on 21 January 2022, with evidence in reply by 4 February 2022. A one-day hearing was listed after 14 February 2022, subject to later adjustment if the evidence justified a longer estimate.
4. Costs. The claimant had successfully resisted the substance of the requested extension. The later date than 17 December reflected the hearing diary and case-management fairness, rather than the merits of the defendants’ application. The claimant was awarded costs, reduced from approximately £40,000 to £25,000 to reflect proportionality.