Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd (No 2)
[2024] EWHC 169 (KB)
Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) Limited & Anor v GL Greenland Limited & Anor
4 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1364 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies argued about unpaid oil bills. The company that owed the money said the other company took too long to officially serve them with the paperwork, and some claims were too old to sue over. The judge said that the company owed the money waited for good reasons, and upheld their claim.
Key Facts
- •NaftIran Intertrade Company (NICO) sued G.L. Greenland Limited (Ferland) and Vitaly Sokolenko for unpaid crude oil invoices totaling €31m.
- •Defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that orders extending time for service of the claim form should be set aside.
- •Claims involved breach of contract and alleged breach of trust/charge by Sokolenko.
- •Multiple extensions of time for service were granted without notice to the defendants.
- •Limitation issues arose, with defendants arguing that some claims were time-barred.
- •Defendants were initially represented by Kennedys Law LLP, but Sokolenko later represented Ferland himself.
Legal Principles
CPR 7.5(2): Service of claim form outside jurisdiction must be within six months of issue.
CPR 7.5(2)
CPR 7.6: Rules governing applications for extending time for service of claim form. 'In-time' applications are determined by the overriding objective; 'out-of-time' applications require showing reasonable steps and prompt action.
CPR 7.6
Collier v Williams principles for extending time for service: Good reason for delay is relevant, but not a jurisdictional threshold; limitation is a significant factor; overriding objective applies.
Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20
ST v BAI (SA) (t/a Brittany Ferries) principles: Justification needed for departing from timely service; reason for inability to serve is highly material; court retains discretion but is unlikely to grant extension without good reason; limitation period expiry is an important consideration; overriding objective must be followed.
ST v BAI (SA) [2022] EWCA Civ 1037
Imperial Cancer Research Fund v Ove Arup: Doubt about time-barring shouldn't be resolved on an extension application; potential prejudice to defendant from disturbing assumed rights is 'considerably important'.
Imperial Cancer Research Fund v Ove Arup [2009] EWHC 1453 (TCC)
Limitation Act 1980: Section 5 (6-year period for breach of contract); Section 29(5) (acknowledgment of debt).
Limitation Act 1980
Outcomes
Defendants' application to challenge the court's jurisdiction was dismissed.
The court found that NICO had sufficiently good reasons for not serving the claim form in time, considering the complexity of the case, ongoing investigations, and the lack of reliable communication with the defendants. The court also found that a limitation defense was unlikely to succeed.
Orders extending time for service were upheld.
The court determined that the reasons provided by NICO for the delay in service were sufficient, considering the complexities involved, even in the absence of initial service attempts.
Claim 1 and Claim 2 to be heard together.
To avoid duplication of costs and effort.
Similar Cases
Doliaa SAS & Anor v Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
[2023] EWHC 3165 (Comm)
CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil and Gas DMCC & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2846 (Comm)
Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd v ING Bank NV & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2350 (Comm)
Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2856 (KB)