BLV, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In judicial review e-filing, the claimant must enter the details required for a new case, including all parties and the representatives required by the filing process. The date of filing is distinct from the date of issue. Acceptance ordinarily does not delay filing unless the submission fails because of an error more serious than an error of procedure, or the court orders otherwise.

A request to alter a court-recorded date which may affect limitation or the parties’ procedural positions is not purely administrative. It should be communicated to the other parties. A procedural-error order may be available to remedy injustice, but the affected parties should ordinarily be given notice or liberty to apply.

The claimant’s solicitors attempted to commence a judicial review claim electronically. The first submission was acknowledged but later failed Acceptance because the defendant and the solicitor’s firm had not been entered in the online case details. Further filing attempts resulted in the claim being recorded as filed on 25 February 2025 and issued on 5 March 2025.

The claimant’s solicitors sought guidance on the information required for a new case, the possibility of backdating the filing date under CPR PD51O and CPR 3.10, and whether communications seeking a change to the recorded date should be copied to the defendant. No objection based on delay or lack of promptness was taken, and permission for judicial review had already been granted.

1. Filing and issue. Filing and issuing are distinct. The claimant makes the claim by filing the claim form, while the court issues it. The filing date is the date recorded by the court as the date of receipt or accepted electronic filing. The issue date is the date entered by the court and triggers the period for service.
2. Required electronic details. Under CPR PD51O §2.3(c), a claimant using Electronic Working must enter the details required for a new case before uploading the documents. Read with the HMCTS guidance, this requires identification of all parties and appropriate representatives. Although the online form and its mandatory fields could cause confusion because it serves both existing and new cases, the guidance’s instruction to complete the party section for new cases, including the later step requiring details for other parties, was sufficient to require those details. The same reasoning applied to the solicitor’s firm details.
3. Acceptance and procedural error. The date and time of filing are not delayed by the court’s review and Acceptance unless the submission fails for an error more serious than an error of procedure, or the court orders otherwise. CPR PD51O §5.3(2), read with CPR 3.10(b), provides a bespoke power to remedy an error of procedure and avoid failed Acceptance. The power can prevent injustice where representatives have conscientiously attempted to comply with the requirements.
4. Notice. The court would ordinarily require the defendant and any interested party to be put on notice before making an order that backdates the filing date, or would give them liberty to apply to discharge it. In the circumstances, the judge would instead have extended time if an extension had been necessary.
5. Unilateral communications. A request to change the court-recorded filing or issue date, where it may affect limitation or the parties’ positions, should not be made unilaterally. It is not purely administrative, even before issue and service. The judgment also emphasised the practical value of candidly informing other parties about filing difficulties.
6. Disposition. No backdating order was made. Permission had been granted without any delay objection, and no further order or direction was required.