Jian Guo v Alison Kinder & Ors

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's second appeal. The central legal issues were whether a claim form sent to the court by email before the expiry of the limitation period could be treated as the claim form "as issued" under CPR Practice Direction 7A paragraph 6.1, and whether the court's inherent jurisdiction could remedy an alleged court-office rejection so as to treat the claim as brought in time.

The court held that the claim form issued on 25 August 2021 was substantially different from the document attached to the appellant's email of 4 August 2021 and therefore could not be treated as the claim form "as issued" for the purposes of PD7A para 6.1. The appellant had not complied with the permitted alternatives to CE-File for electronic filing (notably the requirement for a fee remission certificate where filing by email was sought) and the court office had not received a properly delivered claim form on 4 August 2021. For those reasons the Practice Direction did not assist.

The court further held there was no basis for exercising any inherent jurisdiction to treat the later-issued claim form as if issued on 4 August 2021 because the claimant had not done everything required to commence proceedings and there was no error by the court office in relation to receipt of the documents. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Background and nature of the claim. The appellant alleged negligent legal advice given between April 2013 and September 2015 concerning a 30-year lease of her freehold property and related dealings including a letter of consent, a validation order and a later transfer of the lease. She alleged that, as a result of negligent advice, she suffered loss including payment of a demand for £110,000 and loss of opportunity to forfeit or secure a more favourable deal.

Procedural posture. The appellant attempted to file a claim form in early August 2021. A filing dated 25 August 2021 was later issued and sealed (issued in the High Court on 25 August and sealed 27 August 2021) and the claim was subsequently struck out as statute-barred after summary judgment was entered in the respondents' favour by Deputy District Judge Stringer. His Honour Judge Dodd dismissed the appellant's first appeal. Permission to bring the present appeal was limited by Lord Justice Birss to the single ground concerning PD7A and e-filing; the court was directed to take at face value the evidence placed before it.

Issues before the Court of Appeal.

• Whether the document attached to the appellant's email of 4 August 2021 was the claim form "as issued" under CPR Practice Direction 7A paragraph 6.1 so that the claim could be treated as brought on that earlier date for limitation purposes.
• Alternatively, whether the court's inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to treat the later-issued claim form as having been issued on 4 August 2021 because of an alleged erroneous or arbitrary refusal by court staff to issue the earlier filing.

Court's reasoning and subsidiary findings. The court examined the sequence of emails, e-filing system responses and bank payment evidence. It found the 25 August claim form materially different from the document attached to the appellant's 4 August email (differences in parties, claim amounts and particulars). Receipt of an attachment to an enquiries email did not amount to delivery to the court office for the purposes of PD7A para 6.1. The court emphasised that where email filing is allowed as an exception to CE-File it required compliance with the specific conditions (notably a fee remission certificate) which were not met. On the inherent jurisdiction point, the court concluded there was no error by the court office that caused the appellant to lose the protection of the limitation rules; the claimant had not done everything necessary to commence proceedings before expiry of the limitation period. The authorities relied upon by the appellant (including Riniker and Chelfat) were considered and distinguished on the facts.

Outcome. Appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The court concluded (i) CPR Practice Direction 7A paragraph 6.1 did not apply because the claim form "as issued" was not received by the court office at an earlier date: the document attached to the appellant's 4 August 2021 email was materially different from the claim form issued on 25 August 2021 and did not amount to delivery to the court office; (ii) the court's inherent jurisdiction could not be exercised to treat the later-issued claim form as if issued on 4 August 2021 because the appellant had not done all that was necessary to commence proceedings and there was no error by the court office that caused the limit to be missed.

The claim form was first attempted in August 2021. The respondents obtained summary judgment/strike out on limitation from Deputy District Judge Stringer (order described in the judgment). The appellant's appeal to His Honour Judge Dodd was dismissed. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted by Lord Justice Birss on a single ground limited to CPR PD7A and e-filing (evidence to be taken at face value).