Barton v Wright Hassall LLP

The court must ask whether there is a "good reason" to validate an irregular method of service under CPR 6.15(2); the fact that the claim form and its contents have come to the defendant's attention is a critical factor but is not by itself sufficient; other circumstances, including why valid service was not effected within the period of validity and the parties' conduct, must be considered. Being a litigant in person is not, by itself, a good reason to validate irregular service.

The appellant sought validation under CPR 6.15(2) for service of a claim form sent by email on the last day of its period of validity. The district judge and HHJ Godsmark QC dismissed applications to validate service; the claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The principal legal issue was the correct approach to CPR 6.15(2): whether the court should validate steps already taken to bring a claim form to a defendant's attention when formal service rules have not been observed. The Court of Appeal was invited to apply and interpret authorities including Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043 and Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson [2014] EWCA Civ 898, and to decide whether the judge erred in law in his evaluation of the relevant factors.

Disposition: Appeal dismissed. The judge's conclusion that there was no good reason to validate service under CPR 6.15(2) was not shown to be wrong in principle or fact.

1. In deciding whether to validate irregular service under CPR 6.15(2) the court simply asks whether, in all the circumstances, there is a "good reason" to do so. An appellate court will only interfere with the judge's evaluative judgment if he erred in principle or was wrong in reaching his conclusion (following Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043).
2. The fact that the claim form and its contents have come to the attention of the defendant is a critical factor because the primary purpose of service is to bring the proceedings to the defendant's notice; however, that fact alone does not automatically furnish a "good reason" to validate service (again following Abela).
3. In deciding whether there is a "good reason" there will be a focus on why the claim form could not or could not have been served within the period of validity; the conduct of claimant and defendant and the timing of the application are relevant considerations (see Kaki, Power and Abela).
4. The judge must evaluate all relevant factors; it is permissible to place weight on the claimant's failure to take available and straightforward steps during the generous period allowed for service. The mere fact of being a litigant in person does not, of itself, amount to a good reason for non-compliance with the rules (following Hysaj and Nata Lee Ltd v Abid).
5. Applying those principles to the facts, the court concluded that the judge had properly evaluated the circumstances. The claimant had not shown any impediment preventing valid service within time, had emailed on the last day of validity, had not checked or ensured that email service was acceptable, and there was no evidence of technical game-playing by the defendant that would justify validation. The judge was entitled to dismiss the validation application.
6. Order: appeal dismissed. Costs and any further consequential directions are not stated in the judgment.

• Nottingham County Court: HHJ Godsmark QC dismissed the claimant's appeal from the district judge (reference NG14-028A).
• Chesterfield County Court: District Judge Wall refused to validate service under CPR 6.15(2) (hearing on 14 March 2014).
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal heard by Floyd LJ, Moylan J and Black LJ; appeal dismissed on 23 March 2016.