Doleman v Sayle & Ors

Where a claim form contains claims governed by different service periods, service outside the period applicable to one claim does not invalidate the form for every purpose. Each claim is assessed against its own service period. CPR 56.3, which shortens service for an unopposed new-tenancy claim, modifies CPR 7.5 and 7.6 only so far as necessary for that claim. It does not impose a single two-month deadline on every claim in the same form. A contrary construction would create an arbitrary distinction between combined and separate claim forms, risk a trap for the unwary and conflict with access to justice under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant occupied a public house as a business tenant. After a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, he issued a claim form seeking a declaration that the notice was invalid because the tenancy had been renewed, alternatively a new tenancy under section 24. The form was issued on 5 January 2007 but served on 30 April 2007, outside the two-month period for an unopposed claim under CPR 56.3 but within the four-month period under CPR 7.5. District Judge Little struck out the declaratory claim. The matter then came before HHJ Halbert, whose order restored the declaratory claim and gave consequential directions. The central issue was whether one claim form had to be served by the earliest applicable deadline.

Disposition. Lady Justice Arden refused the renewed application for permission to appeal, concluding that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. CPR 56.3(3)(b) applies specifically to an unopposed claim for a new tenancy under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Its two-month service requirement does not necessarily govern every claim included in the same claim form.
2. Where a claim form contains more than one claim, and service occurs outside the period applicable to one claim but within the period applicable to another, the form is pro tanto validly served. The expression “the claim form” in CPR 56.3(b) may therefore mean the claim form insofar as it relates to the unopposed claim.
3. The words modifying CPR 7.5 and 7.6 operate only to the extent required by the two-month period for the landlord and tenant claim. They do not render a separate claim out of time when that claim has been served within the four-month period.
4. A single service date would create an unexplained distinction between a composite claim form and separate forms containing the same claims. Simplicity did not justify that result. The court considered that interpretation inconsistent with access to justice and the right guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, reinforcing the construction adopted.

The order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2008] EWCA Civ 1014: renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
2. Chester County Court — HHJ Halbert considered the appeal from District Judge Little and restored the declaratory claim, giving consequential directions.
3. Northwich County Court — District Judge Little struck out the declaratory claim on the basis that the claim form had not been served within the period stipulated by CPR 56.3.