24 Whilst it was conceded the delay was significant it was submitted the fifth respondent has been fully informed of the nature of the proceedings and the claim being made against it (and the other respondents) since the inception of the proceedings. In this respect, it was submitted:
(a) When the Summons was served by the Sheriff's Office on the Fifth Respondent's offices on 10 July 2002, only 16 days had elapsed since the Summons became "invalid" under the Rules.
(b) Up until 10 July 2002, the reasons for the delay include the difficulty in locating the offices of the Fifth Respondent in the United States of America and the fact that the Fifth Respondent had changed its name and the location of its registered office. The reasons also encapsulate the fact that the Applicant who is resident in the United States had undertaken to effect service of the Fifth Respondent but his work, health and other time commitments prevented him from doing so in a timely manner.
(c) Since 10 July 2002, the reasons for the delay have been encapsulated in the interlocutory proceedings in this Court concerning service of the Summons upon the Fifth Respondent (where the Fifth Respondent has appeared pursuant only to Rule 82 of the Rules).
(d) It is conceded that the Applicant did not pursue service of the Fifth Respondent with as much vigour as it could have. However, the interests of justice would require the Commission in Court Session to balance the prejudice to the Fifth Respondent on the day as against the prejudice to the Applicant should an extension of time not be granted.
(e) There is no doubt that the Fifth Respondent was aware of the proceedings and had been informed by either the First, Second, Third and/or Fourth Respondents or by Gadens as to the fact of and the nature of the Summons prior to formal service upon it on 10 July 2002.
(f) The First Respondent is the Australian subsidiary of the Fifth Respondent and given that the proceedings involved its parent company it is highly unlikely and, indeed, improbable that the First Respondent would not have taken steps to inform its parent company of the proceedings and the possible claims which may be made against the parent company.
(g) Moreover, the Second and Third Respondents were directors of the Fifth Respondent and continue to be so. Accordingly, on the principle that a corporation is governed by its directors and senior management, it is open to the Court to infer that the Fifth Respondent had, for all intents and purposes, knowledge of the proceedings at an early stage.