MK (A Protected Party) v Buckinghamshire County Council

When deciding whether to extend time for serving a claim form or particulars of claim, the court must consider all the circumstances and apply the overriding objective. Relevant matters include the history of earlier extensions, the reason for delay, the practical effect of the delay, prejudice, the claimant’s vulnerability, limitation issues and the conduct of both parties and the court.

Invalid service of a claim form is not treated as valid merely because the defendant refers to the claim as served, delays taking the point or applies for another procedural order. The court may nevertheless extend time retrospectively where the overall circumstances justify doing so.

The claimant brought proposed personal injury and Human Rights Act claims against a local authority. The claim form was issued in March 2017, but repeated extensions for service were granted. An attempted email service in February 2020 was invalid, and valid postal service occurred on 29 September 2020.

The claimant applied for extensions of time for service of the claim form and particulars of claim. The defendant applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The central issues were whether time should be extended, whether the email service was valid or could be treated as valid, and whether the particulars of claim should receive a further period for preparation.

1. Applications and litigation friend. The court appointed the proposed litigation friend and granted anonymity because the claimant appeared to lack litigation capacity and the proceedings would require extensive reference to medical and mental-health information. The court heard the claimant’s late application issued 18 minutes after the deadline because the delay had no practical effect and arose from a good-faith attempt to comply.
2. Claim form service. Email service was invalid because the requirements of CPR 6.3(1)(d) and Practice Direction 6A paragraph 4.1(1) had not been met. The court found no basis in the defendant’s conduct for treating invalid service as valid. Global Multimedia International Ltd v ARA Media [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1160 concerned submission to the jurisdiction after valid service and did not assist.
3. Extension of time. Applying the overriding objective, the court extended time for service of the claim form to 29 September 2020. The earlier extensions reflected good reason, that reason had continued, the delay had little practical effect, the defendant had the claim form and participated in the proceedings, and the claimant’s vulnerability and limitation position were relevant. The claimant’s solicitors’ mistakes and failure to engage with the defendant were serious but did not outweigh the overall circumstances.
4. Particulars of claim and disposal. Time for serving the particulars of claim was extended to 31 March 2021. No unless order was made, but any further extension application had to be made by 17 March 2021. The defendant’s strike-out application was not decided because the extension decisions rendered it otiose.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no prior appellate decision.