![BL-2021-000228 - [2025] EWHC 2222 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
Alleged non-disclosure - Limitation
Alleged non-disclosure - Limitation
The claimants accept that they did not draw potential limitation defences to the Court’s attention in applying for the extensions to permit the KSA authorities to serve the proceedings.
It is submitted that this does not amount to a material non-disclosure justifying the setting aside of the Extension Orders:
as explained in Murray 2 at [39], there was no intention on the Cs’ part not to provide full and frank disclosure of relevant matters. This is not a case of a culpable failing.
the question of potential limitation defences was not material to the Extension Applications in the circumstances;
service through the KSA Authorities was expressly contemplated by the Arkush Order but in the event would never have been possible within the time provided for in that order, thus necessitating the Extension Orders.
- Heading
- The Applications
- ( the Set Aside Application )
- The Set Aside Application
- The Parties and the Claims
- The Law
- Applications For Extensions Without Notice
- Limitation
- The Second Defendant’s Submissions
- Full and frank disclosure
- No exceptional circumstances or good reasons
- The Claimant’s Submissions
- Will a limitation defence be prejudiced by the Extensions?
- Reasonable steps to serve within time
- Alleged non-disclosure - Limitation
- Alleged Non-Disclosure - Unpaid Costs
- Alleged Non-Disclosure - Delays in service
- Injustice to the Cs
- Discussion and Conclusions on the Set Aside Application
- CPR rules 7.6(3), 6.16 and 6.15
- Claimants’ Submissions
- Second Defendant’s Submissions
- Conclusions