By Swayam Sambhab Mohanty
Introduction
The case of Doliaa SAS v. Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2023] EWHC 3165 (Comm) revolves around a cargo claim brought against the defendant carrier, Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, in accordance with a bill of lading incorporating the Hague Rules. The central issue in this case is the application for an extension of time to serve the claim form, considering the one-year time bar under Art 3.6 of the Hague Rules. The High Court’s decision, sheds light on the principles governing such extension applications and emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods.
Factual Background
The claimants i.e., Doliaa SAS and Ceca Gadis/Gaborprix initiated proceedings against the defendant on 9th May 2022, while the time bar started running from 10th May 2021. The claim faced a one-year time bar, which was to expire on May 10, 2021. The claimants filed an application under Rule 7.6 of the the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 of UK on 5th October 2022, to seek an extension citing advice from the Foreign Process Section (hereinafter referred to as ‘FPS’) that service would take up to five months. The court granted an initial extension till 9th March 2023. However, the FPS lost the submitted documents, which then made the claimants file a second application on 3rd March 2023 for a further extension. The court allowed their application and extended the time for service further till 9th June 2023.
Legal Principles
The court’s decision in Doliaa SAS v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA draws upon principles articulated in ST v BAI (SA) [2022] EWCA Civ 1037. These principles include:
- Right to be Sued Within Limitation Period: The defendant has a right to be sued within the statutory period of limitation.
- Reason for Delay: The reason for the inability to serve within time is a crucial factor. A valid reason increases the likelihood of an extension.
- Discretion to Grant Extension: The court retains discretion to grant an extension, but it is less likely without a good reason.
- Prejudice to Limitation Defense: If a limitation defense will be prejudiced, the claimant must demonstrate taking reasonable steps to serve within time.
- Prospective Extension in Line with the Overriding Objective: The discretionary power to extend time should align with the overriding objective of the court.
Court’s Decision and Reasoning
The England and Wales High Court in Doliaa SAS v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, found that while the claimants had a justifiable reason for the initial delay, but their subsequent dilatoriness was unjustified. The court identified that the claimants were aware that service in Switzerland would take time, and based on that information, the court granted the first extension. Further, the court observed that the failure of claimants to act promptly after that extension was a serious lapse made by them. The court identifying decisive dilatoriness made by the claimants after the first extension, highlighted that the claimants’ knowledge of the service requirement in Switzerland.
The court set aside the second extension order citing the lack of any good reason for the delay by the claimants in lodging documents with the FPS after October 2022; their failure to serve the claim form by March 9, 2023 and the insufficiency of ongoing negotiations as an explanation led the court to set aside the second extension order.
The court further observed that while applying for the second extension, the claimants should have highlighted that their failure to lodge documents prior to February 2023 has had occurred despite knowing that there was a backlog at the FPS, with respect to a claim that had long been time-barred.
Conclusion
The case of Doliaa SAS v. Mediterranean Shipping Co SA reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and the need for claimants to act promptly in seeking an extension of time for service. The court’s decision highlights that while a valid reason for delay may help in getting an initial extension of service, but subsequent unjustified delays can lead to the setting aside of such extension orders. This case emphasizes the responsibility of litigants to act promptly after obtaining extensions, especially when they are aware of the urgency, as in the FPS backlog scenario. It further highlights the court’s skepticism about negotiations as a sufficient explanation, considering the time-barred nature of the claim, reinforces the principle that exceptional circumstances are required to justify circumventing a limitation defense.
Centre for Maritime Law 