In a BBC article explaining the Private Members' Bill ballot, the "art of filibustering" is described. It differs from a filibuster in the US Senate in that participants must actually talk about the bill, and their speeches can be curtailed by the Speaker if they deviate from the matter at hand or repeat their previous remarks.
The Speaker, or the chair, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.
Standing Order No. 42
The article, however, goes on to explain that this has been avoided in the past by repeating remarks after the chair is changed:
Practitioners can't just drone on - they must have something substantive to say about the bill they're debating and they must avoid deviation, hesitation or repetition (although smart filibusterers can sometimes get away with repeating sections of their speech if the deputy speaker in the chair changes and the newcomer hasn't heard the earlier part of what they've been saying).
BBC News - May 19th 2020
The article doesn't, however, give any specific examples of this having occurred. Are there any?