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

they failed to draw attention to the possible limitation issue. The Court was not made aware of the consequences of extending time and was therefore not asked to assess the evidence by reference to the correct test;

they incorrectly said or implied that all outstanding costs orders had been paid. They failed to disclose the unpaid Additional Costs or the history of unpaid costs orders in circumstances where the court had previously made extensions of time conditional upon payment of costs orders; and

they failed to disclose or explain their own periods of delay in providing the documents to the FPS and the statements that they had “done all they reasonably can to effect service” were not correct, since they had not taken the single step (appointing KSA Counsel) which they ought to have taken and which, when they did take, led to prompt service.

there was never any proper justification for the Extension Orders, and they would, if re-granted now, unjustifiably deprive the second defendant of a limitation defence;

there is significant culpability for the non-disclosure that occurred given the history of what had occurred in the period from August 2021 to January 2022 and the remarks of the two Deputy Masters, in particular in relation to the unpaid costs. The potential limitation issue must have been obvious. There has been no explanation how the omissions arose, from which it should be inferred they were deliberate. The only apology made in evidence was in respect of late payment, an apology for the limitation omission was offered at the hearing;

the matters not disclosed are likely to have had a decisive impact on the Court. Had the Court been aware of the unpaid Additional Costs, the history of the matter, the limitation issues and/or the claimants’ delay, it would not have granted the relief sought (or, at the very least, would have insisted that the Additional Costs be paid forthwith as a pre-condition to granting further relief); and

this is a case in which the public interest requiring full and fair disclosure weighs heavily: the claimants are repeat offenders, as noted by two Deputy Masters, and the claimants seem only to pay costs when expedient to them to do so and have avoided risking being compelled to do so by failing to draw the unpaid Additional Costs to the attention of the Court when seeking the previous Extension Orders.