A plaintiff's knowledge of sufficient facts to plead a claim is not determinative against an extension of time for service of originating process; it is one factor among many in the discretionary assessment. Awaiting the outcome of a related appeal that could render the claim futile may constitute a 'good reason' for delay in service, particularly when combined with legitimate personal safety concerns arising from the defendant's conduct. However, the case was closely divided (2-1), with the dissent finding the safety explanation not credible on the evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.