Lynda Maxine Franka Joseph v McFaddens LLP

For the purpose of serving Particulars of Claim under rule 7.4(2), the relevant deadline is the latest time by which the claimant must complete the service step required by rule 7.5(1). The deemed-service date under rule 6.14 does not extend the period of validity of the claim form. Even if deemed service is used as the relevant reference point, the Particulars of Claim may still be late because their own deemed-service date can fall outside that period. A retrospective extension and relief from sanctions are determined under the three-stage Denton approach. A serious and significant breach, unsupported by a good reason and accompanied by wider procedural delay, will ordinarily justify refusal of relief.

The claimant brought a claim alleging breach of contract, fiduciary duty and professional negligence by the defendant law firm in connection with a facility agreement. The claim form was issued on 28 June 2023 and served on 18 October 2023. The Particulars of Claim were posted on 30 October 2023 and received on 1 November 2023.

The defendant applied under CPR rules 11(1) and 3.4(2)(c), contending that the Particulars of Claim were served after the latest time for service of the claim form. The claimant sought retrospective permission to serve out of time and, if necessary, relief from sanctions. The central issues were whether deemed service extended the relevant period and whether relief should be granted.

1. Service deadline. Under CPR rule 7.4(2), service of Particulars of Claim must occur no later than the latest time for serving the claim form. In this context, that means completing the relevant service step required by rule 7.5(1) within the four-month validity period. The deemed-service mechanism in rule 6.14 regulates the date of service for other procedural purposes and does not extend the time for completing the rule 7.5(1) step.
2. The Particulars of Claim were posted on 30 October 2023, after the latest date on which the claim form could be served. They were therefore late. Alternatively, if the deemed-service date of the claim form was treated as the relevant endpoint, that date was 31 October 2023, while the Particulars of Claim were deemed served on 1 November 2023 and remained late.
3. The court’s approach was consistent with the limited-purpose nature of deeming provisions identified in Howard Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland and the reasoning in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Metrolands (Property Finance) Ltd. T&L Sugars Ltd v Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd did not support the claimant’s construction.
4. The application for retrospective extension and relief from sanctions was governed by the three stages in Denton v TH White Ltd. The breach was serious and significant because the Particulars of Claim were served towards the end of the validity period and the defendant was entitled to know the substance of the claim within that period. Work pressures, a family crisis, misunderstanding of business days and complacency did not amount to good reasons. The claimant’s delay in bringing the claim, preparing the Particulars and seeking retrospective relief also weighed against relief.
5. The claimant’s application was dismissed. The court declared that it had no jurisdiction in the claim because the Particulars of Claim were not served within the period of validity of the claim form. Consequential matters, including costs, were reserved for a further hearing.