In applications for extension of time under s 52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act 1988, the onus is on the applicant to show that a fair trial is not unlikely, not on the defendant to demonstrate material prejudice. The prima facie weakness of the plaintiff's case is a factor against granting leave, not a reason for saying the defendant would get a fair trial. The availability of an alternative remedy (such as workers' compensation) is a factor mitigating in favour of refusing the extension. Loss of evidence occurring within the limitation period is still relevant to whether a fair trial is possible, though it carries less weight than post-expiry prejudice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.