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

Fecha: 29-Ago-2025

No exceptional circumstances or good reasons

No exceptional circumstances or good reasons

63.

The claimants’ evidence did not, and does not, meet the strict test for extending time under CPR 7.6(2) in any event. Because limitation was in issue, “exceptional circumstances” are required. The claimants will generally have to show that they have taken “all reasonable steps” and/or that their “good reason” “directly impacts on the limitation aspect of the problem”. The relevant points are these:

(i)

the claimants knew from at latest 9 March 2021 that it would take twelve months or more to serve in KSA. That was presumably the reason why the Arkush Order gave them twelve months from the date of that hearing within which to serve. They received the same information again on 27 September 2021;

(ii)

following the Arkush Order the claimants did not request translations until 11 January 2022, and it then took more than three months before those translations were sent to the FPS on 26 April 2022. The documents, when provided to the FPS, contained errors and were returned, so that the correct documentation was not provided to the FPS for onward transmission to KSA until 27 July 2022. These delays are, in and of themselves, sufficient to extinguish any proper case for relief under CPR 7.6(2);

(iii)

once the documents had been sent to the FPS, the only further steps taken were emails and a small number of calls to the FPS, at each stage shortly before the expiry of the extension period. On each occasion the claimants were told that there was no update. There is no dispute that instructing KSA Counsel to liaise with the Ministry of Justice or to act on the party’s behalf is a possible course to achieve service of documents;

(iv)

the claimants did instruct KSA Counsel to effect service in the First Proceedings but opted not to instruct KSA Counsel until August 2024 in the Present Proceedings. The claimants have not adduced any evidence:

(a)

from Al-Fallaj to explain the nature of the delays in KSA;

(b)

that they could not have instructed KSA Counsel before August 2024; or

(c)

that it would have made no difference had they done so. When KSA Counsel were eventually instructed, the proceedings were served relatively quickly.

64.

In those circumstances, the second defendant submits that there were no exceptional circumstances and no sufficiently good reason to justify the Extension Orders, and the Claimants did not take all reasonable steps to serve the Claim Form.