BL-2021-000228 - [2025] EWHC 2222 (Ch)

it is relevant that service has in fact been effected. This is not a case where the act of service is yet to be carried out;

it is submitted that the claimants took all reasonable steps to effect service in KSA in the relevant period and so meet not only the r.7.6(2) threshold but also the r.7.6(3) threshold;

the claimants applied for a retrospective extension promptly: they did so once the Jurisdiction Application had been made such that an issue had arisen whether the Extension Orders would be set aside. That must be as promptly as r.7.6(3) can require;

whether or not limitation is in issue is irrelevant under r.7.6(3): Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1203; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure 4th Ed. at 5.108.

the applicable test under 6.15 is whether there is good reason to order service by alternative means (see the 2025 White Book, notes 6.15.3, 6.15.5 and 6.40.4). KSA is not a Hague Convention state and so the “exceptional circumstances” threshold does not apply here: M v N [2021] EWHC 360 (Comm) at [8];

there is good reason for such an order in all the circumstances of this case;

DMH shared the service documents with LK by electronic file sharing so that the second defendant is in possession of the claim form and particulars of claim in English and Arabic translation such that an order under r.6.15(2) that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the second defendant’s attention should constitute good service.