Case details
Summary
Applications to extend time for service of a claim form must be justified against the defendant’s right to be sued within the claim form’s initial validity and applicable limitation period. Where an extension may prejudice a limitation defence, the claimant must show reasonable steps to serve within time, and the factors favouring relief must be out of the ordinary. The court must also consider the overriding objective and the balance of hardship.
On a without-notice application, full and frank disclosure includes potential limitation defences, relevant costs defaults, and material facts bearing on the claimant’s ability to serve. Alternative-service or dispensation powers cannot be used to circumvent the stricter requirements of retrospective relief under CPR 7.6(3).
Factual background
The claimants, Cyprus companies, brought contractual, equitable and tortious claims concerning restaurant franchise agreements and trade marks in Saudi Arabia. Service out of the jurisdiction was permitted, with time extended to 1 September 2022 under an order made by Deputy Master Arkush. Three later without-notice orders extended time further, ultimately to 1 March 2025.
The second defendant applied to set aside those orders and service of the claim form. The claimants sought a further extension, alternative service, or dispensation with service. The central issues were whether the claimants had shown a good reason and taken reasonable steps to serve, whether potential limitation defences and other matters had been fairly disclosed, and whether retrospective or alternative-service relief remained available.
Held
- Set-aside application allowed. The second defendant had a right to be sued within the initial statutory limitation period and served within the claim form’s initial validity. The claimants therefore had to justify each departure from that position.
- The court applied the principles summarised by Carr LJ in ST v BAI (SA) (t/a Brittany Ferries) [2022] EWCA Civ 1037. The claimant must establish a good reason for the extension. Where a limitation defence may be prejudiced, the claimant must at least show reasonable steps to serve within time. The court must evaluate the reason in the wider context of the overriding objective and balance the parties’ hardship.
- The claimants had two available routes to service in Saudi Arabia: using the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Saudi authorities, or taking control of the process by instructing a Saudi agent. They delayed obtaining and correcting translations and failed to instruct an agent despite knowing that service through the authorities was unlikely to occur within the available period. They therefore had no good reason for the first extension and an increasingly weaker case for the later extensions.
- Potential limitation defences became material when the first extension beyond 13 November 2023 was sought. The claimants should have disclosed those issues in the evidence supporting the first and second applications. They should also have disclosed the unpaid Additional Costs, particularly given the previous history of costs orders and the condition imposed by the Arkush Order. These were significant failures of full and frank disclosure.
- The extension factors did not take the case out of the ordinary. The First, Second and Third Extension Orders, and service of the claim form, were set aside as against the second defendant.
- CPR 7.6(3) relief was unavailable because the claimants had not taken all reasonable steps within the relevant period. Although the retrospective application had been made promptly, the discretion would in any event have been refused. CPR 6.15 and 6.16 could not be used to subvert CPR 7.6(3) by validating or dispensing with service after the claim form had expired.
The February 2025 Extension Application and Alternative Service Application were dismissed against the second defendant.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Appellate history
Not stated in the judgment. The decision concerns first-instance applications arising from earlier orders in the same proceedings.
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.