WANJIRU KARANJA (R on the application of) v UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND

Service of a judicial review claim form requires service of the sealed form in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules. An e-mail address supplied for future correspondence does not, without a clear indication and prior agreement about electronic service, constitute an address for service. A retrospective extension of time is governed by the strict principles in CPR 7.6, applied by analogy through CPR 3.1(2)(a): the claimant must take all reasonable steps to serve within time and act promptly in seeking an extension. A contractual exclusive jurisdiction clause allocating disputes to Scottish courts may apply to judicial review proceedings where it does not purport to exclude judicial review. The court must nevertheless consider whether strong reasons justify departure from the clause.

The claimant challenged the defendant university’s decision to withdraw her from its Doctor of Business Administration programme. The university was based in Scotland but operated a London campus, where the claimant studied. The enrolment terms provided for exclusive jurisdiction in the Scottish courts.

The claim form was issued on 1 December 2021. An unsealed form had been sent to the London campus on 30 November, and the sealed form was later e-mailed on 10 December. The claimant applied for an extension of time, while the defendant sought to set aside the claim for late or ineffective service and argued that Scotland was the proper jurisdiction.

The issues were whether service was valid, whether time should be extended, and whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause or forum non conveniens principles required proceedings in Scotland.

1. Service. The unsealed claim form sent on 30 November was not valid service. CPR 54.7 requires service of the sealed claim form within seven days of issue. The e-mail of 10 December was also ineffective. The defendant had not clearly indicated willingness to accept service by electronic means under PD6A paragraph 4.1; the e-mail was sent to a general address rather than the address suggested for future correspondence; and no prior request had been made about limitations on electronic service as required by paragraph 4.2. A promise to forward the e-mail did not amount to service by the claimant.
2. Extension of time. The principles in CPR 7.6 apply by analogy to an application under CPR 3.1(2)(a) concerning service of a judicial review claim form. The claimant had to show that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve within the period of validity and that the application was made promptly. No sufficient steps were taken during the relevant period, and the application was delayed until May 2022 after the defendant had identified the service defects. The extension was therefore refused.
3. Jurisdiction. The court treated the exclusive Scottish jurisdiction clause as capable of applying to judicial review proceedings. Such a clause was distinguished from an impermissible ouster clause because it allocated jurisdiction rather than excluding judicial review altogether. Under Donohue v Armco Inc, the clause should ordinarily be enforced unless the claimant showed strong reasons for suing elsewhere. Although the forum non conveniens analysis under Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Canulex favoured England, the claimant had not shown sufficiently strong reasons to displace the contractual allocation.
4. The claim was dismissed because there had been no effective service and the extension application failed. The court also concluded that the Scottish courts, rather than the English courts, had jurisdiction under the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

First-instance judicial review decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in this litigation.