Brightside Group Ltd & Ors v RSM UK Audit LLP & Anor

For a claim form served within the United Kingdom, CPR 6.14 fixes the date of service for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules. Compliance with a notice under CPR 7.7 is therefore assessed by that deemed date, not merely by completion of the service step under CPR 7.5(1).

Failure to comply with a CPR 7.7 notice gives the court a discretion to dismiss, but creates no presumption of dismissal and does not truncate the claim form’s validity. The rule principally enables a defendant to obtain early confirmation that proceedings will be pursued and early sight of the claim. Dismissal is appropriate where the circumstances justify it, such as where the claimant has no real intention of pursuing the claim.

The claimants issued proceedings alleging audit negligence and related due diligence negligence. The defendants served a notice under CPR 7.7, requiring service or discontinuance by 10 June 2016.

The claimants completed the relevant hand-delivery step on that date. Under CPR 6.14, however, service was deemed to occur on 14 June 2016. The defendants applied under CPR 7.7(3) for dismissal and under CPR 11 for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction. The central issues were whether the notice had been breached and, if so, whether dismissal or any other order was just.

1. Service date. The claim form was delivered to or left at the relevant place on 10 June 2016, so the service step required by CPR 7.5(1) was completed within the claim form’s ordinary period of validity. Nevertheless, under CPR 6.14, service occurred for CPR purposes on 14 June 2016. The claimants therefore failed to comply with the deadline in the CPR 7.7 notice.
2. Meaning of the Rules. The CPR distinguish between the step which a claimant must take to effect service and the date on which service is deemed to occur. CPR 6.14 fixes the latter date for all CPR purposes where a claim form is served within the United Kingdom. The 2008 amendment to CPR 7.5(1) altered the validity requirement for domestic service, but did not alter the meaning or operation of CPR 6.14.
3. Authorities. Godwin v Swindon Borough Council and Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No.2) established that the deemed date of service is fixed. The reasoning in Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd, T&L Sugars Ltd v Tate & Lyle Industries, Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council and DB UK Bank Ltd v Sinclair Solutions Ltd did not alter that conclusion.
4. Discretion under CPR 7.7(3). Non-compliance confers a power to dismiss or make another just order. It does not create a presumption that the claim must be dismissed, nor does service of a CPR 7.7 notice shorten the claim form’s ordinary validity. The rule is principally directed to flushing out whether an issued claim will be pursued and obtaining early sight of it.
5. Application. The claimants acted in good faith, the claim form came to the relevant fee earners’ attention on the next working day, and the defendants suffered no prejudice. Dismissal was therefore inappropriate. The CPR 11 application was unnecessary because the claim form had been validly served within the period required by CPR 7.5(1). The dismissal application was rejected and a timetable for service of the Defence and any Reply was set.

First-instance decision in the High Court (Commercial Court). The judgment records no prior appellate decision in this litigation.