Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson Solicitors

Under CPR 6.15(2), the court determines whether there is a good reason to validate steps already taken to bring a claim form to a defendant’s attention by considering all the circumstances. Actual communication of the claim form is critical, although it is not sufficient by itself.

The inquiry focuses on why ordinary service was not completed during the claim form’s period of validity. Court errors, the defendant’s knowledge of the claim, the claimant’s evident intention to pursue it and communications which objectively treated the proceedings as live may together justify retrospective validation. Events before issue will generally be irrelevant.

The claimant sought damages from his former solicitors for negligently failing to pursue a services claim under a compensation scheme for hand-arm vibration syndrome. Proceedings were issued shortly before limitation expired. Although the claimant had requested solicitor service, the court sent the claim form directly to the defendant and failed to notify the claimant’s solicitors.

The defendant immediately forwarded the claim form to its appointed solicitors. The parties then continued corresponding as though the claim were live. The claimant discovered the service problem after the claim form’s four-month validity had expired.

A deputy district judge extended time for service without notice. His Honour Judge Gosnell subsequently set aside that order and rejected retrospective validation under CPR 6.15. The claimant appealed on the central question whether the steps already taken constituted good service under CPR 6.15(2).

1. Appeal allowed. The claim form was retrospectively treated as served on the defendant on 18 September 2012 under CPR 6.15(2). Tomlinson LJ gave the judgment, with which Briggs and Vos LJJ agreed.

2. The correct question was whether, in all the circumstances, there was a good reason to validate the steps already taken to bring the claim form to the defendant’s attention. Following Abela and others v Baadarani and another [2013] 1 WLR 2043, actual communication of the claim form was a critical factor, although knowledge of its existence and contents could not alone establish good reason.

3. The relevant focus was why ordinary service had not been completed during the claim form’s period of validity. The county court had disregarded the claimant’s request for solicitor service and sent the form directly to the defendant. It then compounded that error by failing to provide the notice required after court service. These procedural errors explained why the claimant’s solicitors did not know that the claim form had been issued or when its validity would expire.

4. The defendant already knew the full nature of the claim through compliance with the pre-issue case management order. Receipt of the issued claim form also made the claimant’s intention to pursue proceedings objectively clear. The defendant’s solicitors subsequently requested further information and particulars of claim, thereby treating the claim as live. Their communications objectively lulled the claimant’s solicitors into a false sense of security about service.

5. The claimant’s solicitors could be criticised for failing to investigate sooner and for not answering an ambiguous inquiry about formal service. Those criticisms were muted in light of the court’s two errors, the new centralised issue procedure and the defendant’s solicitors’ subsequent conduct. Taken together, the circumstances provided an overwhelmingly good reason for relief under CPR 6.15(2).

6. The Court ordered that the claim form be deemed served on 18 September 2012. Directions were to be settled so that the action could proceed swiftly to trial.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The claimant’s appeal was allowed. The court retrospectively validated service under CPR 6.15(2) and ordered that the claim form be treated as served on 18 September 2012: [2014] EWCA Civ 898 .
2. Leeds County Court: His Honour Judge Gosnell set aside the deputy district judge’s without-notice extension of time and rejected relief under CPR 6.15. No neutral citation is stated.
3. Leeds County Court: Deputy District Judge Pickup had extended the period for service until 31 May 2013 on the claimant’s without-notice application.