Alleged Non-Disclosure - Unpaid Costs
Alleged Non-Disclosure - Unpaid Costs
The claimants have apologised for not drawing the late payment of both the Outstanding Costs and the Additional Costs to the Court’s attention in the Extension Applications, as has DMH, but say there was no intention not to provide full and frank disclosure of relevant matters. This is not a case of a culpable failing.
Issues relating to the late payment of the Outstanding Costs were ventilated inter parties before Deputy Master Arkush and Deputy Master Francis, and they were paid.
The claimants have also apologised for the late payment of the Additional Costs and provided an explanation for that late payment.
Non-disclosure of the costs issues relied on by the second defendnat does not justify setting aside 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
![BL-2021-000228 - [2025] EWHC 2222 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)