Supreme Court refuses to validate service of a claim form
The claimant, a litigant in person, sought to serve his claim form on the solicitors appointed by the defendant's insurers by email. Under the CPR, service by email is only allowed where the recipient has previously confirmed in writing that it is willing to accept service in this way. This was not the case here. The solicitors informed the litigant in person that service was not valid but only after the time for service had expired (and the claim was time-barred). When the claimant's application under CPR r6.15(2), for an order that the steps he had taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant should count as good service, was refused, he appealed to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was dismissed and so the claimant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has now rejected that appeal by a majority of 3:2. In doing so, the Supreme Court confirmed that it is not enough that the claim form has come to the attention of the defendant: "This is because a bright line rule is necessary in order to determine the exact point from which time runs for the taking of further steps or the entry of judgment in default of them". Nor is there usually any reason to justify applying to litigants in person a lower standard of compliance (although it may affect the position in a marginal case).
The solicitors were not under any duty to advise the appellant that service was invalid and "Nor could they properly have done so without taking their client's instructions and advising them that the result might be to deprive them of a limitation defence. It is hardly conceivable that in those circumstances the client would have authorised it."
The conclusion that the Supreme Court drew was that the appellant had not allowed himself enough time to rectify any mishap, having attempted to serve both at the end of the limitation period and at the end of the claim form's period of validity: "A person who courts disaster in this way can have only a very limited claim on the court's indulgence... By comparison, the prejudice to [the defendant] is palpable. They will retrospectively be deprived of an accrued limitation defence if service is validated".
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
