Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Ors

Where a claim form is issued within the limitation period, an application made in time to extend the period for serving particulars of claim remains an application to extend time under CPR r.3.1(2)(a). The more stringent approach to relief from sanctions does not apply merely because the application is heard after the original deadline. The court must exercise its discretion in accordance with the overriding objective, considering matters such as delay, explanation, prejudice and procedural fairness. An application made without notice to extend time for serving particulars may be set aside where the procedural requirements and justification for proceeding without notice are not established. Related claims may properly be consolidated where that is the sensible and proportionate course, and preliminary issues may be extended to cover them where this promotes efficient determination.

The claimant brought five libel claims concerning articles published by Independent Print Ltd, Evening Standard Ltd and AOL (UK) Ltd. Two further claims were issued shortly before expiry of the ordinary limitation period, but the particulars of claim were not served within the period prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules.

The claimant obtained without-notice orders extending time for service. The defendants applied to set those orders aside. The claimant also sought extensions of time, consolidation of related claims, combined particulars of claim, and directions that the existing preliminary issues should include the two later claims.

The central issues were whether the court should treat the applications as applications for relief from sanctions, whether the without-notice orders were properly made, and what procedure best served the overriding objective.

1. The without-notice orders were set aside. Although omission of the statement required by CPR r.23.9(3) was not decisive, the evidence did not adequately explain the urgency or the claimant’s delay. Informal notification should ordinarily have been given under CPR PD 23A paragraph 4.2, and the application notice and supporting evidence had not been properly served as required by CPR r.23.9(2).
2. Time for serving particulars of claim was extended. The applications had been made before expiry of the relevant periods. Under Hallam Estates Ltd v Baker [2014] 4 Cost LR 660, the applications therefore remained applications under CPR r.3.1(2)(a), even though they were heard after expiry. The claimant did not have to satisfy the criteria for relief from sanctions in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 795 (CA) and Denton v T.H. White Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 3926 (CA).
3. The court considered the claimant’s delay, the inadequate explanation for not serving separate pleadings, the fact that the claims were issued within the limitation period, the timely service of the claim forms, the defendants’ receipt of draft particulars, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice. Weighing those matters under the overriding objective, an extension was just, although the claimant was provisionally required to pay the application costs.
4. The related claims against each publisher were to be consolidated, with combined particulars of claim. Consolidation required a court order and was the sensible and economical course.
5. The preliminary issue hearing was also to determine meaning, serious harm under Defamation Act 2013 section 1, and abuse of process in relation to the second AOL and IPL claims.