Eric Walton v Pickerings Solicitors & Anor

A claim form is issued when the court seals it. The date entered on the form must be the date of actual sealing and issue. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 confer no express or implied power to backdate that date.

The issue date primarily marks the beginning of the four- or six-month period for service. Backdating cannot abridge or eliminate the period which the rules give a claimant. For limitation purposes, where the court received the claim form before issuing it, the claim is brought on the earlier date of receipt under Practice Direction 7A.

The claimant delivered a claim form to the court and paid the issue fee on 20 July 2020. The form became lost within the court system. After the claimant supplied a revised form, the court sealed it between 30 November and 7 December 2020 but entered 20 July 2020 as the issue date. By the time the sealed form was received and served, four months had elapsed from the entered date.

A Deputy Master refused a retrospective extension for service. On appeal, a Deputy High Court Judge held in [2022] EWHC 2073 (Ch) that a discretion to extend time existed under rule 7.6, but upheld its exercise against the claimant. The claimant appealed again. The central issue was whether the court had power to seal a claim form using a date earlier than its actual sealing and issue.

1. Appeal allowed. The claim form was served in time on both defendants. The defendants were directed to serve their defences by 4 p.m. on 4 July 2023, without prejudice to applications for an extension or to the first defendant raising limitation below.

2. Proceedings start when the court issues the claim form under rule 7.2. On issue, the court must seal the form under rule 2.6. Because the seal indicates that the form has been issued, the document remains unissued and the proceedings remain unstarted until the seal is applied. Rule 7.2(2) therefore directs the court to enter the true date of sealing and issue. It does not confer a discretionary power to deem the form issued on an earlier date.

3. The primary function of the issue date is to begin the period for service under rule 7.5. A claimant ordinarily has four months to serve within the jurisdiction and six months to serve outside it. Permitting backdating would improperly reduce, or even eliminate, that period. A delay between the court’s receipt of the form and its issue does not abridge the period available after issue.

4. The issue date does not determine when a claim is brought for limitation purposes. Under paragraph 6.1 of Practice Direction 7A, where a claim form was received by the court before it was issued, the claim is brought for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and other relevant statutes on the earlier receipt date. Barnes v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1372 confirmed that this practice direction reflected the law.

5. Authorities decided under the former Rules of the Supreme Court required caution because the CPR is a new procedural code interpreted according to its own terms. The court therefore placed no reliance on the former procedural authorities. Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 concerned extensions of time for service rather than the anterior question of when the service period begins.

6. The form was actually sealed between 30 November and 7 December 2020. The court should have used that date, rather than 20 July 2020. Service on 8 and 10 December was consequently within time. Nugee LJ delivered the judgment; Falk and Asplin LJJ agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2023] EWCA Civ 602, allowed the appeal and declared that the claim form had been served in time on both defendants.

2. High Court: In [2022] EWHC 2073 (Ch), the Deputy High Court Judge held that the precondition in rule 7.6(b) was satisfied but upheld the refusal to extend time and dismissed the appeal from the Deputy Master.

3. High Court, before the Deputy Master: Refused the claimant’s application to extend time for service. The Deputy Master held that the rule 7.6 preconditions were unmet and that, in any event, discretion would have been exercised against an extension.