Excotek Ltd v City Air Express Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2615 (Comm) (30 September 2021)

Excotek Ltd v City Air Express Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2615 (Comm) (30 September 2021)

The breach was not serious or significant because the delay was consistent with a stay agreed by both parties, and did not disrupt litigation. The oversight was inadvertent, not deliberate. Refusal of relief would be disproportionate and would deprive Excotek of a substantive claim. Extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim is granted; strike out is refused.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2615 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Excotek Limited; First Defendant: City Air Express Ltd (in liquidation); Second Defendant: Chaucer Corporate Capital No. 3 Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Application for Extension of Time for Service of Particulars of Claim and Cross Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim granted; cross-application to strike out dismissed.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Strike Out, Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, Contractual Time Bar
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Strike Out Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 Contractual Time Bar

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excotek Limited

Claimant

City Air Express Ltd (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Chaucer Corporate Capital No. 3 Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Application for Extension of Time for Service of Particulars of Claim and Cross Application to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted an extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for failure to serve Particulars of Claim on time
  3. 3 Whether the parties' agreement to a stay mitigates the seriousness of the breach

Ratio Decidendi

The breach was not serious or significant because the delay was consistent with a stay agreed by both parties, and did not disrupt litigation. The oversight was inadvertent, not deliberate. Refusal of relief would be disproportionate and would deprive Excotek of a substantive claim. Extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim is granted; strike out is refused.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim granted; cross-application to strike out dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim to 26 March 2021 granted.
  • Strike out application by Chaucer dismissed.