- Extensions of time for jurisdiction dispute application (S.E.T Select v F and M Bunkering)
- Practical implications
- Granting a retrospective extension of time
- Can CPR 11.4 preclude a jurisdiction challenge under EU law?
- Should the court consider granting an extension of time ?
- What CPR provision applies when seeking an extension of time?
- Court details
DR analysis: Blair J has reiterated the guiding principles set out by the Supreme Court in The Alexandros T in relation to a defendant in an EU Member State applying to dispute the jurisdiction of the English courts. Due to the interplay between CPR 11 and the Judgments Regulation, in this area of law, the courts will be more inclined to provide a short extension of time, in an appropriate case, to enable the court to determine whether the English courts should, in fact, refuse jurisdiction so fulfilling the objective of the Judgments Regulation, which is to prevent potentially conflicting judgments in different jurisdictions on the same issues between the same parties (art 27). Blair J considered the application of Mitchell, a Court of Appeal relief from sanctions case decided after the Supreme Court decision in The Alexandros T, but due to specific issues in this case evidence supporting a CPR 3.9 application had not been prepared and so CPR 3.9 did not apply. Instead, the court allowed the extension of time sought under its own case management powers provided in CPR 3.1(2). Blair J did note when discussing Mitchell that, in his view, the decision allowed for extensions of time where the party seeking it had only narrowly missed the deadline.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial