The appellant had brought professional negligence claim in 2005 against a law firm, Bowen Johnsons, which had acted for him in 1999. The respondent in this case, Wright Hassall LLP, initially acted for the claimant but then came off the record following a disagreement relating to fees. The claimant, representing himself, subsequently alleged that the respondent breached duties owed to him when they came off the record.

On the last day before the expiry of the issued claim form the claimant emailed the Claim Form and Response Pack to the respondent’s solicitors. The solicitors replied that they had not confirmed that service by email was acceptable and in the absence of that confirmation, email was not a permitted mode of service. They added that the claim form had expired unserved and that the claim was now statute-barred.

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s appeal. What constitutes “good reason” for validating the non-compliant service of a claim form is essentially a matter of factual evaluation. The Court noted that the Rules of Court establish an important formal step to be treated as informing the defendant of the contents of the claim form. Consequently it is not enough that the defendant is aware of the contents of the claim form.

Practical Lessons

This was the first time the Supreme Court considered the position of claimants acting without legal advice when deciding whether to strike out a claim not served in accordance with the Court Rules.

The Court rejected the argument that that service of the claim form is fulfilled if its contents are brought to the attention of the person to be served. Awareness of the form’s contents is likely to be necessary for validation but it is not sufficient.

While the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) for England and Wales do not apply in Northern Ireland this case nonetheless emphasises that strict rules regarding time limits apply to litigants in person as much as represented parties.

A Northern Irish appellate court would surely be referred to this decision if a similar argument regarding adherence to time limits arose. At a time when the number of unrepresented parties is growing, this decision will be of significance to litigators on both sides of the Irish Sea.

The full court decision, along with a summary and video, is available here:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0136.html