Report comment

Sadly, I think I know where this is likely to go, as I had a remarkably similar case five years ago, in which I was representing Defendants. The conduct by those representing the Claimant was frankly appalling, among other things in trying to cover up the issue and then get Court staff to seal backdated documents.

All that notwithstanding, the outcome of an application was a decision by the court to extend the limitation period; totally unreasonable in my view, but it got round the issue.

I would not be in the slightest bit surprised, to see the provisional strikeout set aside on the basis of an extension of the limitation period (whether in this application or another, or even by way of appealing this order), allowing the Claimant/Claimant's solicitors back in again.

The Claimant might well in such circumstances bear a costs penalty in respect of any such application, but that would clearly be a penalty worth taking on the chin to get the proceedings back on track , not that they were correctly on track in the first place of course.

The expiry of the limitation period it would appear in practice counts for very little these days.