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

Fecha: 29-Ago-2025

Reasonable steps to serve within time

Reasonable steps to serve within time

69.

The claimants did not leave the issue of proceedings until just before limitation expired and then issue their extension application at the very last minute, as happened in Hastroodi.

70.

The claimants took reasonable steps to effect service on the defendants within time.

(i)

the claimants applied to serve out of the jurisdiction on 10 March 2021, less than a month after the issue of the claim form;

(ii)

it was reasonable for the claimants to wait until the Arkush Order was made on 20 September 2021 before taking further steps to serve the defendants.

(iii)

the proceedings were then stayed until the claimants paid the Outstanding Costs on 13 January 2022. The need for additional time to pay those costs was not unreasonable, as the grant of extensions of time to pay by the Court shows;

(iv)

the claimants sought guidance from the FPS on 24 September 2021, four days after the Arkush Order was made;

(v)

the FPS again indicated that service on KSA would take a minimum of 12 months from when the documents were received by the KSA authorities;

(vi)

the claimants initiated the process of obtaining the translations of the service documents on 11 January 2022, two days before the lifting of the stay, and received those translations on 8 March 2022;

(vii)

they sent the service documents to the FPS on 26 April 2022 and then sent documents with a corrected translation certificate and list to the FPS on 27 July 2022, the same day they received the corrected translation certificate;

(viii)

once the documents had been received by the FPS, the claimants applied for an extension promptly on 18 August 2022. It was reasonable to seek an extension to 1 December 2023 in light of what they had been told by the FPS about the time for service;

(ix)

the time that the British and KSA authorities took to effect service in KSA was outside the claimants’ control. The claimants were not reasonably required to take steps such as instructing counsel in KSA;

(x)

the claimants took reasonable steps to obtain updates from the FPS;

(xi)

it was plainly reasonable for the claimants to make the November 2023 and June 2024 Applications only once it became clear that service would not be effected by the existing deadline. To make the applications earlier would have been unnecessary and wasteful (including of court resources); and

(xii)

once the claimants were informed that service on the first defendant through the KSA authorities had failed, they instructed Al-Fallaj to assist with service in KSA. Until that time they had no reason to believe service through the KSA authorities would fail, as distinct from simply taking a long time.

71.

In the circumstances, the claimants satisfy the “reasonable steps” threshold for the purposes of each of the Extension Orders. It follows that any prejudice to the second defendant in relation to potential limitation defences is not determinative of whether those orders should have been granted.

There was good reason to grant the Extension Orders in order to permit service through the KSA authorities in circumstances where:

(i)

the second defendant cannot complain about the Arkush Order;

(ii)

the Arkush Order extended time to 1 September 2022;

(iii)

the claimants delivered the service documents to the FPS and the process of service through the KSA authorities began before 1 September 2022;

(iv)

that process was outside the claimants’ control;

(v)

service would take a minimum of 12 months from the receipt of the documents by the KSA authorities and so could not have been completed before 1 September 2022; and

(vi)

service on the second defendant by the KSA authorities in fact took until 16 November 2024.

73.

Had the Extension Orders not been made, the claimants could not have served on the second defendant through the KSA authorities as contemplated by the Arkush Order.