ERIC WALTON v PICKERINGS SOLICITORS & Anor

Strict rules govern service of a claim form because service fixes important procedural and limitation consequences. A claimant who elects to serve must serve the sealed claim form within the prescribed period. Where the court has failed to provide a sealed claim form, that may satisfy the threshold for an extension under CPR rule 7.6(3)(b), but it does not automatically justify relief. The claimant must still have acted promptly and taken all reasonable steps that could reasonably have been expected, including making enquiries of the court. Under CPR rule 6.15, the court cannot validate service of an unsealed or materially different document as an alternative method of serving the sealed claim form. Even if such power existed, the court would need a good reason, assessed in light of the claimant’s conduct, the defendant’s knowledge and prejudice, including the loss of a limitation defence.

The claimant appealed against the Deputy Master’s refusal to extend time for serving his claim form. The claim form had been presented to the court on 20 July 2020, but the court lost it and did not return a sealed copy. The claimant served an unsealed claim form and particulars of claim on 17 November 2020, then served the sealed claim form on 7 December 2020 after the court reissued it bearing the original date.

The Deputy Master held that none of the conditions in CPR rule 7.6(3) was met and declared the claim form a nullity. On appeal, the claimant relied on CPR rules 7.6(3) and 6.15, arguing that the court’s error, Covid-related disruption and the defendants’ knowledge justified retrospective relief. The central issues were whether the rule 7.6(3) thresholds were satisfied and whether the unsealed service could be retrospectively validated.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Deputy Master’s order was upheld. The claimant’s failure to serve the claim form in time was not cured by the court’s mistake.
2. CPR rule 7.6(3)(a) concerns cases where the court has responsibility for serving the claim form on the defendants. It did not apply because the claimant had elected to serve the claim form himself.
3. The absence of a sealed claim form did not prevent reliance on CPR rule 7.6(3)(b). The claimant was required to take all reasonable steps to comply with CPR rule 7.5 once the sealed claim form was in his possession. The court’s failure to provide it could therefore establish the threshold condition, but the discretion to extend time remained.
4. Promptness under CPR rule 7.6(3)(c) is assessed in all the circumstances. Where the claimant cannot serve or know the applicable deadline without the sealed claim form, the relevant period may run from receipt of that document. The claimant acted promptly by serving it and applying within ten days.
5. The discretion should nevertheless be refused. The claimant had made no earlier attempt to contact the court, had issued at the end of the limitation period, could have sought an extension by consent or application, and served an unsealed claim form knowing that it was non-compliant. The defendants faced prejudice through the potential loss of limitation defences.
6. CPR rule 6.15 permits changes to the method or place of service. It does not permit validation of service of an unsealed claim form, and in any event the document served differed materially from the claim form later sealed and issued. The defendants’ awareness of the claim’s substance was insufficient.
7. The court’s evaluative assessment disclosed no error of principle or plainly wrong conclusion. No order was made under CPR rule 6.15.

• Chancery Appeals, High Court: The appeal from the order of Deputy Master Dray dated 28 June 2021 was dismissed and the order upheld.
• Deputy Master Dray: Refused an extension of time under CPR rule 7.6(3), declared the claim form a nullity and ordered the claimant to pay the defendants’ costs.