THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIOD ACT 1984: PUBLIC POLICY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP: NOT PART OF THE “STAR WARS” DEFENCE
In Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors  EWHC 3374 (Comm) Mr Justice Picken considered Section 2 of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The judge held that he would have extended the limitation period on public policy and undue hardship grounds. The judgment contains a review of the relevant case law and principles in relation to Section 2 of the 1984 Act.
“Memorably described by Mr Robert Howe QC (leading Mr Jonathan Miller and Mr Daniel Saoul) as the ‘Star Wars’ defence, this, Mr Twigger submitted, makes it necessary to adopt a cautious approach which avoids viewing transactions carried out in Kazakhstan prior to 2010 in the same way as commerce is conducted in London in 2017. I bear this point in mind when considering the evidence in this case, together with Mr Howe’s inter-galactic inspired riposte (although whether acts before 2010 do properly qualify as “a long time ago” or whether Kazakhstan, or anywhere else, counts as “a galaxy far, far away” are not issues which, thankfully, I am required to resolve)”
The claimant brought a case alleging fraud. The relevant law was the law of Kazakhstan. There was an issue as to whether the claims were statute barred under Kazakh law. The judge found that there had been a fraud.
THE JUDGMENT ON THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIODS ACT DEFENCE
The Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984