The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1579 (KB)
Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd
10 January 2024
[2023] EWHC 2856 (KB)
High Court
Someone got hurt in Antarctica and sued a company in the UK. The company argued the UK court shouldn't hear the case. The judge decided the company's arguments about the timing of their response were valid because of some mistakes the injured person made in the legal process. The judge let the company use some late evidence, balancing the interests of both parties fairly.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, a self-employed aircraft engineer, injured at a Novo Air Base in Antarctica in 2018.
- •Claim issued against a South African company (Defendant) in the UK in 2021.
- •Claim Form initially marked "Not for Service Out of the Jurisdiction", but permission to serve out was later granted.
- •Defendant challenged jurisdiction and the validity of the service.
- •Several procedural issues arose regarding time limits for service, acknowledgment of service, and challenges to jurisdiction.
- •Defendant's evidence was submitted late due to witness illness.
Legal Principles
Four-month time limit for serving a claim form within the jurisdiction.
CPR 7.5(1)
Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction is not subject to a four-month time limit.
Anderton v Clywd CC [2002] EWCA Civ 933; Nesheim v Kosa [2006] EWHC 2710 (Ch)
CPR Part 11 governs procedures for disputing jurisdiction; a defendant must acknowledge service and apply to dispute jurisdiction within 14 days.
CPR Part 11
Where the court grants permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction, it must specify time periods for response; failure to do so renders the order defective.
CPR 6.37(5)
Relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 is considered based on factors in Denton v TH White Limited [2014] 1 WLR 392.
Denton v TH White Limited [2014] 1 WLR 392
Outcomes
The court had jurisdiction to extend time for service of the claim form.
The Claim Form was always intended for service out of the jurisdiction; the 'Not for Service Out of the Jurisdiction' marking only indicated that court permission was needed, not that a four-month time limit applied. The case law supports this interpretation.
Defendant's application to challenge jurisdiction was not out of time.
The initial order granting permission to serve out was defective because it failed to specify time limits for acknowledgment of service as required by CPR 6.37(5). The defendant's delay was excusable due to the claimant's procedural omissions and the witness's illness.
Permission granted for the Defendant to rely on the late witness statement of Ms. Kruger.
While the statement was served late, the delay was due to the witness's illness, a reasonable explanation. Balancing the factors, it is not disproportionate to allow the Defendant to rely on this key evidence.
Permission granted for the Defendant to rely on the supplementary statement of Mr. Stiebel.
While late, this statement primarily contained documentary evidence and its late submission did not unduly prejudice the Claimant.
Similar Cases
Dr Sanjay Pitalia & Anor v NHS England
[2023] EWCA Civ 657
Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd (No 2)
[2024] EWHC 169 (KB)
Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Limited
[2024] EWHC 1662 (KB)
Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) Limited & Anor v GL Greenland Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1364 (Comm)