Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION.

Document Cited authorities 3 Cited in Related
Vincent
AuthorHerman, Alexander

Qatar Investment and Project Development Holding Co. and His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al Thani v. Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. (1)

In the October 2021 issue of this journal, we discussed the decision of the High Court not to allow the extension of time for service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction in a case over an allegedly fake marble head of Alexander the Great. (2) The piece had been sold by defendants Phoenix Ancient Art (Phoenix) to Qatar Investment and Projects Holding Co. (the claimant) on 24 January 2014. Approximately four years later the claimant began to suspect that it was a forgery. Proceedings were issued by the claimant two days before the expiry of the six-year limitation period in England and Wales, viz. on 22 January 2020, but proceedings needed to be served on Phoenix thereafter (within four months if within the jurisdiction or six months if outside the jurisdiction). Service was not accepted by Phoenix's English solicitors within the jurisdiction, so service needed to be made in Switzerland at Phoenix's place of business. By the time the claimant's solicitors were seeking to make service out-of-jurisdiction, the Foreign Process Section (FPS) at the Royal Courts of Justice was closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. While the Master originally agreed to extend the time for service under CPR Rule 7.6 in ex parte proceedings, these were challenged by the defendant, ultimately resulting in the Master setting aside his earlier order on 8 September 2020. This final decision by the Master was then affirmed by Davis J. in the High Court. The claimant was therefore unable to serve proceedings, effectively nullifying its original contractual claim against Phoenix.

The claimant subsequently appealed to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The grounds for appeal stemmed from the claimant's argument that the Master had adopted an unreasonable approach to the very real problems of the pandemic. (3) This was divided into two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
COPYRIGHT TV Trade Media, Inc.
COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT