Christian Gotti v Karen Perrett

An interim injunction application issued before a substantive claim form may itself constitute proceedings. The CPR can therefore govern the application even where no Part 7 or Part 8 claim is later issued, no undertaking to issue is taken, and the application was misconceived.

• The court retains jurisdiction to discharge or vary the injunction and to make ancillary orders, including costs and steps enabling a defendant to pursue damages.
• Under CPR r.3.10, an incorrect originating form may be treated as a procedural error after proceedings have commenced. The court may remedy it where the form conveys the essential case, no rule forbids the remedy, and the overriding objective favours correction.

A claimant cannot use its own procedural failure to obtain the benefit of an injunction without facing its consequences.

Christian Gotti obtained a pre-action interim injunction against Karen Perrett using form N16A. The application was issued under CPR Part 23 and concerned an alleged breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. No undertaking to issue a claim form or undertaking in damages was given, and no substantive claim form was later issued.

Perrett subsequently applied to discharge the injunction and sought damages and costs. Gotti accepted that the injunction had been deeply misconceived, but argued that there were no proceedings and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant ancillary relief. Deputy District Judge Robinson rejected that argument. HHJ Salmon dismissed Gotti’s first appeal and held, alternatively, that CPR r.3.10 could treat form N16A as form N208. The central issues on the second appeal were whether proceedings existed and whether the procedural error could be remedied.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Proceedings. An application issued by the county court under CPR Parts 23 and 25 before a substantive claim form is issued constitutes proceedings for the purposes of the relevant procedural rules. Section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 permits the county court to make orders available to the High Court in any proceedings, and section 147 gives proceedings a non-exhaustive meaning that includes actions and matters. The CPR also expressly contemplate applications and interim remedies before a claim is started. The word proceedings is not a term of art and must be read in context.
2. Effect of procedural defects. The absence of an undertaking to issue a claim form, an undertaking in damages, directions for commencement, or a later claim form amounted to procedural non-compliance. It did not make the issued application a nullity. Nor did the fact that the underlying application was legally defective or deeply misconceived deprive the court of jurisdiction over the application. The court could discharge or vary the injunction and make ancillary orders, including orders enabling Perrett to pursue damages and costs.
3. Costs. Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives the county court discretion over the costs of and incidental to all proceedings. That jurisdiction is not conditional on the prior or subsequent issue of a claim form. The contrary authorities relied on by Gotti did not establish such a limitation.
4. Correction under CPR r.3.10. The court could alternatively remedy the use of form N16A instead of the required Part 8 form N208. Proceedings had commenced because the application had been issued and the fee paid. The incorrect form was an error of procedure, the form contained the necessary material, and no rule prohibited correction. CPR r.3.10 is to be applied flexibly in accordance with the overriding objective. The form N16A could therefore stand as a claim form.
5. Final position. The lower courts were entitled to regularise the position and enable Perrett to pursue her costs and damages. The existing proceedings were to continue to case management in the county court.

• Worcester County Court, Deputy District Judge Robinson: held that the injunction application constituted proceedings, discharged the injunction, and made case-management directions enabling the respondent to pursue costs and damages.
• Worcester County Court, HHJ Salmon: dismissed the first appeal and held that the court retained jurisdiction. He further held that CPR r.3.10 could remedy the use of form N16A by treating it as form N208.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the second appeal and endorsed both the proceedings analysis and the alternative CPR r.3.10 analysis: [2025] EWCA Civ 1168.