Secretary of State for Trade & Industry v Vohora & Anor

For limitation purposes, an application may be brought before proceedings are formally started. Under the CPR, proceedings start when the court issues the claim form, but paragraph 5.1 of the Practice Direction to Part 7 provides an earlier date for claims under the Limitation Act 1980 and any other relevant statute. An application under section 7(2) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is such a claim. It is brought when the court receives the request and draft claim form, provided that receipt precedes formal issue. The distinction between claims being brought and proceedings being begun or started is therefore decisive.

The Secretary of State sought disqualification orders against the appellants under section 7 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The company concerned became insolvent on 7 May 2002, so the two-year period expired on 7 May 2004.

The claim form and request were received by the court on 26 April 2004, but the form was not issued until 17 May 2004. The Chief Registrar held that the application was within time. The appellants appealed, contending that the application was made only when the claim form was issued. The central issue was whether section 7(2) required formal issue before the application was made.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s application was brought within the two-year period in section 7(2) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

2. Under CPR 7.2, proceedings are started when the court issues the claim form, on the date entered on the form by the court. On that issue, the court applied the reasoning in St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372.

3. Paragraph 5.1 of the Practice Direction to Part 7 qualifies that position for limitation purposes. Where the claim form was received by the court before it was issued, the claim is brought on the earlier date. Section 7(2), which provides that an application for a disqualification order shall not be made after a specified period, falls within the reference to any other relevant statute in paragraph 5.1.

4. The expression application for the making of an order in section 7(2) has the same meaning as bringing proceedings. It does not have the same meaning as starting or beginning proceedings. The request and draft claim form were received on 26 April 2004, so the application was brought before expiry of the statutory period.

5. The court distinguished the approach in Salford City Council v Garner [2004] EWCA Civ 364, which concerned statutory language referring to when proceedings were begun. The extended meaning given to brought for limitation purposes did not apply to that different wording. The court also accepted that Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Limited [1973] 2 WLR 147 offered no assistance on the issue.

• High Court (Chancery Division): On 15 November 2007, the appeal from the Chief Registrar’s decision of 28 March 2007 was dismissed.