Bali v 1-2 Couriers Limited & Anor

A claim form is issued, for the purposes of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rr.7.2 and 7.5, on the date entered on it by the court when it is sealed. It is not issued when the court office despatches it. In the absence of evidence that the seal was impermissibly affixed on a later date, the sealed date conclusively establishes the date of issue.

On a post-expiry application under r.7.6(3), the court must assess whether all reasonable steps to serve were taken by reference to the entire history. Court-office delay and late receipt are relevant, but do not confine the inquiry to the period after receipt. Relief-from-sanctions provisions do not cure late or invalid service of a claim form.

The appellant sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Her former solicitors lodged an unsealed claim form and a Help with Fees application at the court office on the final day of the primary limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980.

After prolonged delay concerning fees, the claim form was sealed on 13 December 2023 but was not sent to the solicitors until 2 April 2024. They received it on 15 April 2024, two days after the four-month service period had expired if the seal date was the issue date. The Mayor’s and City of London Court refused an extension for service and struck out the claim.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal. The central questions were when a claim form is issued under CPR r.7.2(2), and whether an extension should have been granted under CPR r.7.6(3).

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. A claim form is issued on the date entered on it by the court under CPR r.7.2(2). Read with CPR r.2.6, the mandatory act of sealing occurs on issue and signifies that issue has occurred. Issue and sealing therefore cannot occur on different dates. The date on which the court later despatches the sealed form is irrelevant to the commencement of proceedings and to the service period.

   The Court applied Walton v Pickerings Solicitors [2023] EWCA Civ 602. The sealed date supplies necessary certainty. It may be displaced by evidence that the form was backdated or otherwise impermissibly sealed on a different date, but there was no such evidence here. The fee payment, allocation of a claim number, and sealing on the following day supported the conclusion that issue occurred on 13 December 2023.

2. The only available route to relief from late service was an extension under CPR r.7.6(3). The relief-from-sanctions rules do not apply to late or otherwise invalid service of a claim form. The claimant had to establish both that all reasonable steps to comply with r.7.5 had been taken and that an extension was appropriate in all the circumstances.

3. The inquiry into reasonable steps is not confined to the period after the sealed form reaches the claimant or solicitor. It is wrong in principle to focus exclusively even on events after issue. The whole history is relevant, including attempts to obtain a claim form so that it can be served. The same approach applies where r.7.6 operates directly and where it is applied by analogy, although the facts affecting reasonable conduct may differ.

   Court-office delay and the solicitors’ ignorance of the issue date were relevant discretionary factors. They did not excuse the solicitors’ prolonged inactivity after the fee had been paid and a claim number allocated, particularly because limitation had expired. They should have actively pursued whether issue had occurred, what had happened to the claim form, and, if necessary, sought a precautionary extension. The judge was entitled, and plainly right, to find that all reasonable steps had not been taken.

4. Lewison LJ additionally observed that authority bundles must comply with PD52C paragraph 29(2). Parties who provide non-compliant bundles, instead of authoritative reported versions with marked passages, should expect the related preparation costs to be disallowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the refusal of an extension for service and the striking out of her personal-injury claim: [2025] EWCA Civ 1413.
• Mayor’s and City of London Court: Deputy District Judge Lenon KC refused an extension of time for service of the claim form and struck out the claim. Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was transferred under CPR r.52.53.