Key Facts
- •Knaresborough Investments Ltd (Claimant) sued Styles & Wood Group Ltd (in liquidation), Philip Lanigan, and Anthony Lenehan (Defendants) for alleged misrepresentations inducing a share purchase.
- •The claim involves events from 2017-2018 related to 'Project Revie'.
- •The Claimant is an assignee of claims from Extentia (which went into administration) and Styles & Wood.
- •The Defendants applied for a 7-month extension to file their Defence or a stay pending a separate application to set aside the assignment agreement.
- •The Defendants claimed they needed time to review approximately 700,000 documents to be provided by the liquidators of Styles & Wood.
Legal Principles
Short timeframe for filing a defence (28 days) to encourage expedition; no general obligation to make reasonable inquiries of third parties at this stage.
SPI North Ltd v. Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 7
Overriding objective (CPR Rule 1.1) to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, ensuring parties are on an equal footing and saving expense.
CPR Rule 1.1
Extension of time for filing a defence requires scrutiny of reasons; absence of prejudice to the other party is insufficient.
James Fisher Everard Ltd v European Diesel Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 978 (Comm); Re. Guidezone Ltd [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch)
For a stay, the applicant must show duplication, oppression/vexation/abuse of process, and absence of reasons against relief (e.g., unreasonable delay).
Slough Estates v Slough BC (No.1) [1968] Ch. 299
Outcomes
Defendants' application for a 7-month extension to file their Defence was refused.
The court found that the Defendants' need to review 700,000 documents did not justify an extended hiatus, and that the CPR anticipates inequalities in document access to be addressed through early disclosure, not a lengthy delay. The complexity of the case and lack of retained documents were not considered exceptional circumstances.
Defendants' application for a stay pending the outcome of the Set-Aside Application was refused.
While some duplication existed, this was insufficient to justify a stay. Allowing the action to remain dormant would be prejudicial and inconsistent with the overriding objective.
Defendants were granted an extension until 4:30 pm on 31 July 2024 to serve their Defence.
This shorter extension balances the need for a realistic timeframe with the requirements of efficient case management.