Dixon & Anor v Radley House Partnership (A Firm) & Ors

Where proceedings are issued without abusive conduct, an underpayment of the issue fee does not prevent the claim from being “brought” for limitation purposes once the court has issued the proceedings. Before issue, however, a claimant seeking to rely on the earlier date on which the claim form was received must show that it delivered the claim form with a request to issue and the appropriate fee.

The appropriate fee is determined by the claim or claims articulated in the claim form and, if issued simultaneously, the Particulars of Claim. A later increase in the amount claimed does not retrospectively invalidate the proceedings or alter the limitation date, although additional fees may become payable and later amendments may raise separate limitation issues.

The claimants brought professional negligence, contract and misrepresentation claims arising from the refurbishment of their home. Proceedings against Radley House Partnership were received by the court before expiry of the relevant six-year limitation period but issued after that date. Proceedings against the other defendants were issued within the relevant period, with fees calculated by reference to the sums stated in the claim forms.

The defendants sought permission to amend their defences to plead that the claims had not been brought for the purposes of sections 2 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 because the fees paid on issue were insufficient when compared with the losses later pleaded. The central issue was whether non-abusive underpayment of an issue fee prevented proceedings, once issued, from stopping time for limitation purposes.

1. Applications refused. The proposed amendments had no real prospects of success and permission to amend was refused.
2. Sections 2 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 provide that claims in tort or simple contract must be brought within six years. Under CPR Part 7.2, proceedings are started when the court issues the claim form. Practice Direction 7.1 provides an earlier limitation date where the claim form was received earlier, but only where it was accompanied by a request to issue and the appropriate fee.
3. The court distinguished the period before issue from the period after issue. Before issue, the principle in Page v Hewetts [2012] EWCA Civ 805 applies. A claimant seeking to rely on receipt by the court must have done what was required to set the proceedings in motion, including providing the appropriate fee.
4. Once the court has issued proceedings, an inadequate fee does not, absent abusive procedural conduct, make the proceedings ineffective for limitation purposes. Neither the fees regime nor the authorities supported the defendants’ proposed “nuclear option”. The court retained procedural powers to require payment of the shortfall and to impose sanctions for non-compliance.
5. The appropriate fee for the pre-issue principle is determined by the claim or claims articulated in the claim form and, if issued simultaneously, the Particulars of Claim. Later claims or later quantification do not retrospectively alter the fee payable on issue, provided the claimant’s conduct was not abusive. A statutory provision concerning claims whose value is not identified modifies that approach for the relevant period.
6. The RHP claim form advanced a money claim of £35,894.78 for which the fee paid was appropriate. The action was therefore brought on 25 October 2013. The CRA amendments relied on the same misconceived central proposition and likewise had no reasonable prospects of success.