Free Leisure Ltd (t/a "Cirque le Soir") v Peidl and Company Ltd (now dissolved) & Anor

A claim form must contain sufficient factual detail to identify the nature of the claim and the remedy sought. A bare statement of breach of contract or negligence does not satisfy that minimum requirement.

Later correspondence or pleadings cannot ordinarily supply facts missing from the claim form, particularly where they were created or served after limitation had expired. A claim form containing no effective cause of action cannot support later particulars advancing new causes of action. Amendments raising such claims are impermissible where the limitation period has expired and the new claims do not arise from substantially the same facts.

The claimant sought damages arising from a fire at its nightclub, alleging negligence and breach of contract against the contractor responsible for installing Christmas decorations. It also advanced a claim against the contractor’s insurer under the Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.

The claim form was issued shortly before the six-year limitation period expired, but its brief details stated only: a claim arising from breach of contract and/or negligence. Detailed particulars and a letter of claim were served later. The insurer applied to strike out the claim or obtain reverse summary judgment. The central issues were whether the claim form disclosed an effective cause of action, whether later documents could cure its defects, and whether amendment was possible after limitation had expired.

1. Disposition. The claim was struck out. It was unnecessary to determine which specific strike-out route applied because the claim could not continue.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 16.2(1), a claim form must contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim and specify the remedy sought. There is a minimum factual content requirement. A bare reference to breach of contract or negligence provides no indication of the contract allegedly breached or the duty allegedly omitted.
3. The claim form contained no facts and no effective cause of action. The letter of claim could not be used to construe it. The case was materially different from Evans v Cig Mon Cymru Ltd, where the claim form and particulars served with it revealed an obvious clerical error. The particulars here were served later and introduced new causes of action.
4. The claim form could not be read with the later particulars merely because they formed part of the wider statement of case under rule 2.3. A document has its meaning when communicated, and later pleadings cannot retrospectively supply the essential subject matter of a defective claim form, especially after limitation has expired.
5. Any amendment required permission. Permission was unavailable because the limitation period had expired and the proposed amendments did not arise from substantially the same facts as those contained in the original claim form, which contained no effective facts at all. The claim was therefore struck out.