Mohammed Hassan El Haddad v Khulood Abdulla Hassan Al Rostamani

Where an application to extend time for a jurisdiction challenge is made in time, the court should exercise its ordinary discretion under the overriding objective. The formal relief-from-sanctions regime in CPR 3.9 and the strict Denton burden do not apply, although the Denton stages remain a useful analytical framework.

The court should assess the seriousness of the delay, the reasons for it, and all the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the complexity and volume of the evidence, whether the application affects the litigation timetable, procedural compliance, prejudice, and the need to determine jurisdiction issues properly. An evidential defect may be cured where justice and proportionality favour allowing the application to proceed.

The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant after earlier litigation had resulted in substantial unpaid costs and an extended civil restraint order. The defendant, served out of the jurisdiction, filed an acknowledgement of service on 2 October 2024 and sought to challenge jurisdiction under CPR Part 11 and, alternatively, to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2).

The Part 11 application was issued on 16 October 2024 without supporting evidence. The defendant later served extensive evidence on 13 November 2024 and sought permission to rely on it. The central issue was whether the defendant should receive an extension of time and whether the application notice should be permitted to proceed.

1. Extension granted. The defendant was permitted to rely on the evidence served on 13 November 2024, and the application notice was allowed to proceed. It was not set aside.
2. Because the extension application had been made within the applicable time, the court approached it under its ordinary discretion and CPR 1.1. CPR 3.9 and the formal Denton v TH White relief-from-sanctions approach were not directly applicable, although the three Denton stages provided a useful structure.
3. The delay was serious and substantial in context. CPR Part 11 imposes a short period for jurisdiction challenges, reflecting the policy that such challenges should be raised promptly and the deemed-waiver consequence in CPR 11(5).
4. There was good reason for the extension. The proposed applications involved jurisdiction, service out, extensions of time for service, abuse of process and a substantial evidential history. The volume and complexity of the material, the need for careful checking, and the involvement of several legal teams justified additional time.
5. In the overall circumstances, the application had been made in time, the delay caused no material disruption to the litigation timetable, and the evidential failure had been cured. The overriding objective favoured determination of the substantive jurisdiction dispute, including in the context of cross-jurisdictional issues and international comity.
6. For costs, CPR 44.2 required a principled exercise of discretion having regard to success, conduct and all the circumstances. The defendant succeeded on the evidential issue, but had chosen to issue the Part 11 application without grounds or evidence. The court ordered that 50% of the costs of the hearing and application be costs in the application, with the remaining 50% payable by the claimant as the defendant’s costs in the application.