The Weekly Roundup: The Pantheon Edition

• Published date: 06 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: 1 Chancery Lane
• Author: Mr Tom Collins and Thomas Yarrow

You can imagine our excitement as we gathered round the 1CL telly this week, agog to view the new Marvel/Disney offering, Moon Knight, a rip-roaring yarn featuring the extremely poor behaviour of some of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon. And speaking of pantheons, over in the Court of Appeal their lordships were grappling with a case involving a knock off bust of Alexander the Great, whilst the High Court was considering whether to allow two further Claimants to join the pantheon in the diesel emissions case. Outside the court system, Thomas Cook's creditors are being encouraged to make themselves known online here, and we hear tell that some of them are even being paid, albeit only a third or so of the value of their claims. And in other, even more exciting news, the 7^th edition of Saggerson on Travel Law is rumoured to be hitting the shelves of all good bookshops in only a few months' time - authored, for this edition, by no fewer than six of the 1CL team. Now there's a pantheon for you.

Suspect Artefacts, Suspect Excuses: When does the Pandemic Justify an Extension of Time?

Qatar Investment and Project Development Holding Company & Anor v Phoenix Ancient Art SA [2022] EWCA Civ 422

In a case involving the sale of an allegedly fake bust of Alexander the Great, the Court of Appeal has been called on to decide whether the claimants' reason for seeking an extension of time for serving proceedings was the genuine article.

Background

The claimants, a Qatari investment company and its CEO, Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al Thani, purchased the bust in January 2014 from Phoenix Ancient Art SA, a Swiss arts dealer. They paid US$3 million, believing it to be an artefact from ancient Greece, before becoming suspicious that it was a fake.

Proceedings were issued just before limitation in January 2020. Pursuant to CPR 7.5, the claimants had six months to serve out of the jurisdiction.

In or around the middle of June 2020 (one month before service was due) the claimants' solicitors discovered that the Foreign Process Section of the High Court was closed due to the pandemic and it was unknown when it would reopen. There was by then, already a large backlog of cases awaiting service outside the jurisdiction. It subsequently emerged that the FPS had been suspended since 16^th April 2020 (and it remained closed until 28^th July 2020).

On 26^th June 2020, the claimants sought an extension of time for service and on 17^th July 2020, a four month extension was granted ex parte by Master Gidden. The Claimants subsequently submitted their application for service out of the jurisdiction to the FPS on 11^th August 2020 and the Defendant was served in Switzerland on 8^th September 2020, 28 days later.

The Defendant successfully applied before Master Gidden to set aside the order extending time for service and the decision was upheld on appeal by William Davis J.

Court of Appeal decision

The claimants brought a further appeal on the grounds that the closure of the FPS and the general disruption to business caused by the pandemic prevented them from serving within the ordinary six month period.

As to the closure of the FPS, the Court of Appeal noted the Master's factual findings that the need for an extension was due to a number of issues unconnected with the pandemic; indeed, the claimants...