The Alter Tabith and Alan Fushi (1995). Following a collision, negotiations took place between the respective P&I Clubs of the vessels, and time extensions were granted, but the plaintiffs’ P&I Club case-handler made a mistake in noting down the time limit. The plaintiffs applied for an extension of time of the limitation period provided by section 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911. The Court of Appeal held that it had to consider first whether good reason for an extension had been demonstrated by the plaintiff which was essentially a question of fact. Only if the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing good reason the Court would proceed to exercise its discretion, taking into account the balance of hardship, as to whether such extension should be granted. Mere carelessness has never been a good reason for an extension, and a valid explanation for the failure to issue a protective writ was imperative. The failure to issue the writ was entirely due to the plaintiffs’ P&I Club case-handler’s own mistake and this was no good reason for an extension of time. Section 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 has, however, now been repealed. The present position is contained in section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995