Atha & Co Solicitors v Liddle

A claim is brought for limitation purposes when the claim form and request to issue are received by the court, provided any procedural default by the claimant did not cause the subsequent delay in issue. Payment of the correct fee is not an independent condition in every case.

A deliberately false statement of value made for tactical reasons is an abuse of process. That abuse does not automatically postpone the date on which the claim was brought or require strike-out. The court must consider its practical effect and impose a proportionate response. Strike-out remains a last resort, reserved for abuse sufficiently serious to justify it.

The claimant brought a professional negligence claim against her former solicitors, alleging that they had wrongfully discontinued an earlier personal injury action. The claim form reached the court two days before expiry of the six-year limitation period but was issued afterwards.

The claim form stated a value between £10,000 and £25,000, attracting a fee of £1,250. The claimant’s solicitor had not genuinely concluded that the claim fell within that range. The defendant applied for strike-out or summary judgment, contending that the deliberate undervaluation was an abuse of process and that the claim had not been brought within time.

HHJ Mark Gargan dismissed that application in the Middlesbrough County Court. The defendant appealed. The central issue was whether, under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, the claim was brought when received by the court or only when subsequently issued.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claim was brought for limitation purposes when the court received the claim form, before expiry of the six-year period. It was not postponed until the later date of issue.

2. The solicitor’s statement that the claim was worth between £10,000 and £25,000 did not reflect a genuine assessment. Deliberately misstating value for tactical reasons was a use of the court’s process significantly different from its ordinary and proper use. It therefore constituted an abuse of process, applying Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 F.L.R. 759.

3. Nevertheless, abuse does not automatically require strike-out. The sanction must support the overriding objective and be proportionate. A valid claim should be struck out only as a last resort where a less severe response cannot address the abuse. The present conduct fell well short of the seriousness required for strike-out.

4. Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 and paragraph 5.1 of Practice Direction 7A distinguish the bringing of a claim from its formal issue. Barnes v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1372 established that the claimant’s limitation risk ordinarily ends upon delivery of the request to the court. Its parenthetical reference to payment of the court fee did not establish an independent exception governing every fee error.

5. The relevant question is whether the claimant’s default caused the court not to process the claim in time. Where a fee discrepancy causes the court to withhold issue, the risk of delay remains with the claimant. Here, however, the fee matched the value stated on the form, the court accepted it, and the delay in issue was entirely unconnected with the abusive undervaluation. The relationship ceased to be transactional upon receipt.

6. The court declined to follow Lewis v Ward Hadaway [2016] 4 WLR 6 and Bhatti v Ashgar [2016] EWHC 1049 insofar as they treated payment of the correct fee, or procedural perfection generally, as a prerequisite even where the discrepancy caused no delay. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, although authoritative Court of Appeal guidance was considered desirable.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. The court held that the claim had been brought when the claim form was received within the limitation period, notwithstanding the solicitor’s abuse of process.
2. Middlesbrough County Court: By an order of HHJ Mark Gargan dated 13 December 2017, the defendant’s application to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment on limitation grounds was dismissed. The judge had found that the incorrect statement of value did not constitute an abuse of process.