Deadlines: Claimant was aware of errors court office had made
A claimant failed to take reasonable steps to serve a claim form in a £572,000 professional negligence action against a law firm, a judge has ruled.
Her Honour Judge Saira Singh in Birmingham County Court said that, although the court had issued the claim, it had still not provided a sealed copy by the time of the appeal hearing 22 months later.
Clearly “the court office made errors here”, she said, but the first question was not whether the court was at fault.
“Rather, it was whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the period specified in CPR 7.5(1) in the circumstances in which it found itself (including the errors and failures by the court office).”
Developers Arnold Holdings launched a £572,500 professional negligence action against Keelys, based in Lichfield, in April 2023.
On 20 June 2023, the day before the six-year limitation period expired, a solicitor from Coventry firm Smith & Wells, acting for the claimant, attended the court to issue the claim as a protective writ, asking for it to be sent back to the firm for service.
The claim form was issued the following month and, instead of returning it, the court office “purported to serve it on the defendant direct”.
HHJ Singh said: “I say ‘purported to serve it’ because, in a further twist, it became apparent at the hearing before the district judge that the claim form received by the defendant from the court was a photocopy of the sealed claim form rather than an original.”
Keelys agreed in August 2023 to accept that the claim had not been served.
Smith & Wells subsequently made several ‘chaser’ calls to the court and on 4 October 2023 a solicitor was told in person by the court office that the file would be retrieved and a copy of the sealed claim form sent out.
This did not happen and later that month, Smith & Wells served a claim form on Keelys date stamped 20 June 2023 but was unsealed, had no claim number in the heading and did not indicate the issue date.
Keelys responded by filing and serving an acknowledgement of service and indicating its intention to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. The claimant served an application for a retrospective extension of time for serving the claim form.
District Judge Mansfield dismissed the application for a time extension and for an order dispensing with service, and ordered the claimant to pay costs of £10,000. The claimant appealed the time extension decision.
HHJ Singh rejected this, agreeing with the district judge that Keelys’ indication that it was going to challenge jurisdiction “ought to have flagged to the claimant and its solicitors, if they did not already know, that there was likely an issue with the service of the claim form”.
While it was “difficult not to have sympathy” with the claimant, it was “not reasonable” to have just relied on the communication with the court office, “because that appears to be all it did do”.
The authorities were clear about the jeopardy faced by claimants who “court disaster” by not bringing their claim until the very end of the limitation period and opting not to have the claim form served by the court, HHJ Singh said.
She continued: “Unfortunately, errors and delays do occur, whether due to under-resourcing or otherwise. In some cases, there is nothing a party can do; for example, where evidence has been properly filed in a timely manner but not placed in the court file, which only becomes apparent at the hearing.
“This case is different. While the court office clearly made administrative errors, the claimant was aware of those errors from 20 July 2023 onwards.
“There were steps it could have taken, whether by increasing their efforts to engage with the court or by making an appropriate in-time application to the court.
“However, despite knowing that the limitation period had expired, the claimant inexplicably took no steps at all after 4 October 2023. In those circumstances, it cannot be right for it to lay the blame solely at the door of the court office.”
Leave a Comment