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

Mr De Froment points out that the claimants were required by the Arkush Order to serve in accordance with CPR 6.40(3)(a) (through judicial authorities in KSA) and/or (c) (method permitted by law of KSA). He says they cannot be criticised for seeking to serve through the FPS and the KSA authorities.

Once the documents were with the FPS, the claimants had no control over the timescale for service to occur. The combination of the FPS and KSA authorities meant that service could not be effected within the periods provided for by the Arkush Order and the first two Extension Orders. That was a difficulty in effecting service as identified in Cecil. Mr De Froment relied upon Crossroads Corporate Finance (UK) LLP v Ontario Management Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1011 (Comm) [26]-[27], where the claimant could not take matters into its own hands and that difficulty of service was found to be a good reason.