Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Visa Europe Ltd & Ors

A claim form must bear the court’s original seal before it can be served. Electronic filing under PD51O may make the date of issue retrospective to the date of filing, but it does not make an unsealed draft a claim form.

Relief under CPR rule 6.15 requires good reason. Relevant considerations include reasonable steps to effect service, the defendant’s knowledge of the claim, and prejudice, including loss of a limitation defence. CPR rule 6.16 is reserved for exceptional circumstances. Rule 3.10 cannot override the specific rules governing the time and manner of serving a claim form.

The claimants brought 16 competition-law claims against Visa and Mastercard. Extensions of time for service expired on 17 July 2020. On that date the claimants electronically filed amended claim forms but served unsealed copies by email. Sealed amended claim forms were served later.

The defendants contended that the claims had not been served in time and sought orders determining that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimants sought declarations of valid service or relief under CPR rules 6.15, 6.16 and 3.10. In the Visa claims, the court also had to construe undertakings concerning the issue of fresh proceedings.

1. Unsealed documents were not claim forms. A document in claim-form format is not a claim form for CPR purposes unless it bears the original court seal. PD51O preserves that rule. Its retrospective treatment of the filing date as the issue date does not alter the requirement that the court must electronically seal the claim form before returning it ready for service.
2. Service was therefore ineffective. The documents emailed on 17 July 2020 were unsealed amended drafts. No claim form was served within the period extended by agreement under CPR rule 7.5.
3. Rule 6.15 relief was refused. Applying the approach in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119, the claimants had not taken reasonable steps to effect service in accordance with the rules. Although the defendants knew the contents of the claims, that was only a necessary, not sufficient, consideration. Retrospective validation would deprive the defendants of limitation defences and there was no good reason to grant relief.
4. Rule 6.16 relief was refused. The absence of good reason under rule 6.15 meant that the circumstances were not exceptional. The same conclusion applied even where a sealed amended claim form had been available during 17 July 2020 but was not served.
5. Rule 3.10 did not assist. Following Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB), the general procedural-error provision could not override the specific rules governing service of claim forms. The claims were accordingly at an end for want of timely service.
6. The Visa undertakings did not prevent fresh claims. Properly construed, the undertakings prohibited ending the existing proceedings and issuing substantially equivalent proceedings for the purpose of obtaining a perceived advantage under Directive 2014/104/EU or otherwise. In the circumstances, where the claimants sought no such advantage, fresh proceedings would not breach the undertakings.