QB-2022-002353 - [2025] EWHC 1836 (KB)

The second aspect of the Defendant’s Set Aside Application which requires consideration is his case that there were no good reasons for the extensions of time for service of the Claim Form. As I have said, while overlapping with his case on failures to make a proper presentation, this limb of his Set Aside Application raises the issue of whether there were, and were shown to be, good reasons for the extensions.

In relation to The First Extension Application, what was put forward as the justification for the extension was that the Claimant had not been granted permission to serve the Claim Form out of the jurisdiction, notwithstanding that an application had been made. There was, however, no explanation as to why no application for permission to serve out had been made until 12 December 2022, which was 4 ½ months after issue of the Claim Form. There still has been no such explanation. In my judgment it neither was nor is apparent that there was any good reason for this delay.

In relation to The Second Extension Application, the Claimant had not, apparently, lodged any documents with the Foreign Process Section until 1 June 2023, and had not lodged the correct documents until 16 June 2023. No good reason for this delay either was, or has now, been shown. The suggestion that a delay had been caused by without prejudice communications was false. While it was said that the Claimant had had difficulties in raising funds to pursue the claim, as stated in ST v BAI at [62(ii)], awaiting funding may not be a good reason. I do not consider that the Claimant’s financial position either was, or has been, shown to be a good reason in this case. To be regarded as a good reason would have required, at least, specifics as to his financial position, and as to why that financial position had delayed the efforts to lodge the relevant documents with the Foreign Process Section before they were. No such specific information was provided. Furthermore, the assertion that his financial position of the Claimant was the result of his ‘career and associated earnings [having been] prematurely ended by the facts giving rise to this claim’, was one which needed to be justified, in particular in light of the facts revealed in the material summarised in paragraph 95 of Mr Oliver’s first witness statement, including that the Claimant has apparently competed in, and won, numerous professional kickboxing events in the years following Ms Tamim’s death.

While Mr Berg’s second witness statement refers to ‘delays in procuring and then re-procuring the translation of documents’, this does not appear to be a good reason for their being lodged so late with the Foreign Process Section. It should have been obvious to the Claimant and his representatives from the time of issue of the Claim Form, or at latest from the time of the application to serve the Claim Form out of the jurisdiction, that there would be a need to obtain translations of the claim documents.