Barton v Wright Hassall Solicitors Llp

For an application to validate ineffective service under rule 6.15(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, later appellate authority may make an appeal arguable where the lower court may have exercised its discretion on the wrong legal basis. The court considered that the governing principles might have been relaxed so that exceptional circumstances were unnecessary and one good reason could suffice. Permission to appeal was granted, without deciding whether the service was valid or should ultimately be validated.

The claimant sent a claim form by email to the defendant’s solicitors. The service was ineffective, and the solicitors did not identify the defect. The claimant challenged a decision of the County Court sitting at Nottingham concerning whether the service could be validated under CPR 6.15(2).

On the application for permission to appeal, the central issue was whether later authority made it arguable that the lower court had applied the wrong legal approach, including whether exceptional circumstances were necessary or whether one good reason could suffice.

Permission to appeal was granted. The court did not decide whether the email service was valid or should ultimately be validated.

1. The claim form had been sent by email to the defendants’ solicitors, but that service was ineffective. The solicitors had not identified the defect. The claimant had four months to serve the claim form and had left service until the last moment, which created a difficulty relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
2. The appellant relied on Abela and later authorities for a more flexible approach under CPR 6.15(2). The court was persuaded that at least two authorities decided after Abela, including Power v Melloy Whittle Robinson [2014] EWCA Civ 898 and Kaki v National Private Air Transport Co, made it arguable that the lower court’s discretion might have been exercised on the wrong basis.
3. The court recorded the Lawtel account of Kaki as indicating that alternative service could be validated where there was a good reason, without exceptional circumstances being required, and that one good reason might suffice. That account was expressly conditional on the approved transcript being consistent with it.
4. Because the lower judge had not had those authorities cited, a different result was arguable. That was sufficient to justify permission to appeal. The merits of the service issue remained open.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Longmore granted permission to appeal. The merits of the appeal were not determined.
2. County Court sitting at Nottingham: Decision under appeal concerning ineffective email service and the exercise of the CPR 6.15(2) discretion. No citation is stated in the judgment.