[2025] EWHC 2485 (Ch)

But, in order for the court so to declare, Iftikhar must make an application under CPR Part 11. As already noted, on the basis that he has never been served, Iftikhar does not require an extension of time for acknowledging service, but he does require an extension to file his challenge application. This is the subject matter of Iftikhar’s application of 9 December 2024. Since he gave notice of application to extend the 14 day deadline before that deadline expired, there is no need for him to apply for relief from sanctions. In Jalla v Shell International Trading & Shipping Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1559, Coulson LJ (with whom Edis LJ agreed) said, of an “in-time” application:

“29.

The court will grant a reasonable extension if it does not impact on hearing dates or otherwise disrupt proceedings: see Vneshprombank LLC v Georgy Bedzhamov [2019] EWHC 1430 (Ch), citing Hallam Estates v Baker (2014) 4 Costs LR at 26.”

At the time of filing the acknowledgement of service and the notice of application to extend time for a challenge to jurisdiction, Iftikhar did not know what documents Vaqar was supposed to have served on him, or the basis on which permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was obtained. In my judgment it was quite reasonable for Iftikhar to seek an extension of time in order to obtain the relevant documents. His solicitors sought those documents from 10 December 2024, but in fact they were never provided, Vaqar’s outright refusal coming only on 15 January 2025. An extension of about a month to 24 January 2025 would not impact on any hearing dates or otherwise disrupt proceedings. In my judgment, such an extension of time should be given. Accordingly, the challenge application was properly made within time as extended, and the court can accordingly declare that it has no jurisdiction over Iftikhar in relation to the 2019 English Partnership Claim. Since the claim form has expired without having been served on Iftikhar and his siblings, it can go nowhere.