James Lonsdale & Ors. v Wedlake Bell LLP & Ors.

Where parties are engaged in civil litigation, promissory estoppel requires an unequivocal representation that a procedural right will not be exercised. General discussions about mediation, or an indication that a further extension might be agreed, are insufficient.

Under CPR r. 6.15(2), bringing a claim form to the defendant’s attention is necessary but not sufficient. The court must evaluate all the circumstances, including the claimant’s diligence, the defendant’s conduct and any prejudice, such as loss of a reasonably arguable limitation defence. CPR r. 6.16 sets a higher threshold: dispensing with service requires exceptional circumstances.

The claimants alleged that a solicitor had negligently advised them about the beneficiaries of a family trust. They issued a claim form in July 2021, sent it to the defendants’ solicitors expressly not by way of service, and agreed an extension of the service period to 1 December 2021.

The parties discussed mediation. On 1 November 2021, the defendants’ solicitors indicated that mediation would have to take place in January 2022 and invited agreement of a further extension for service. The claimants neither served the claim form nor agreed a further extension before the deadline. They served it on 19 January 2022.

The claimants sought relief by promissory estoppel, validation of service under CPR r. 6.15(2), or dispensation with service under CPR r. 6.16. The defendants sought to set aside service.

1. Promissory estoppel. The claimants could not identify any clear, unequivocal and precise representation that the defendants had waived their procedural rights or that service need not be effected before 1 December 2021. The correspondence expressly contemplated either service or a further written extension. The estoppel claim therefore failed.
2. Validation under CPR r. 6.15(2). The court applied the principles explained in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119, including the guidance derived from Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043. The fact that the defendants had received the claim form and particulars was not sufficient. Relevant factors included reasonable steps to effect valid service, the defendants’ knowledge, prejudice, the claimant’s conduct and the defendants’ conduct.
3. The claimants had deliberately sent the claim form by email on the basis that it was not service. They knew that service or a written extension was required, yet made no attempt to serve or agree a further extension during the four weeks before expiry. The defendants had not caused or contributed to the failure. They had indicated willingness to agree a further extension, but were entitled to await the claimants’ response and were under no duty to remind them of the deadline. The defendants also faced a reasonably arguable limitation defence. There was therefore no good reason to validate the defective service.
4. Dispensation under CPR r. 6.16. The exceptional-circumstances threshold is higher than the good-reason threshold under CPR r. 6.15. For the same reasons, the case did not meet that threshold.
5. The claimants’ application was dismissed. The defendants’ application succeeded. Service of the July Claim Form on 19 January 2022 was set aside because the claim form had expired, and the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims pleaded in it.