Byers & Ors v Samba Financial Group

Byers & Ors v Samba Financial Group

The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a realistic prospect that SAMA would change its position by the requested extension date, failed to act promptly after receiving relevant correspondence, and granting the extension would unreasonably disrupt the orderly preparation for trial and prejudice the claimants. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Byers; Claimant: Hugh Dickson; Claimant: Saad Investment Company Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Samba Financial Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time for Disclosure
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Extension of Time, Case Management, Breach of Trust, Liquidation
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts Disclosure Obligations Extension of Time Case Management Breach of Trust Liquidation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Byers

Claimant

Hugh Dickson

Claimant

Saad Investment Company Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Samba Financial Group

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted a further extension of time to comply with disclosure obligations
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct in relation to disclosure and communication with SAMA justifies the extension
  3. 3 Whether the extension would prejudice the claimants and disrupt trial preparation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a realistic prospect that SAMA would change its position by the requested extension date, failed to act promptly after receiving relevant correspondence, and granting the extension would unreasonably disrupt the orderly preparation for trial and prejudice the claimants. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • Remainder of the defendant's first application of 13 December and the claimants' application of 16 December adjourned to be heard not before 14 January 2020 on a date to be fixed.