If the Civil Procedures Rules are not complied with, this can lead to dire consequences!
Whilst the initial stages of issuing a claim is a simple procedure, it can easily lead to dire consequences if the Civil Procedure Rules are not complied with, including your claim being struck out.
In the case Pitalia & anr (appellant) v NHS England, the Pitalias (Appellants) were GPs who issued a claim against NHS England (Respondent) in August 2019. The claim form was delivered to Preston County Court and the claim was issued on 12th August 2019. The Appellants did not notice the issued claim form had not been returned until close to the time when service would expire. Therefore, the Appellants served an unsealed version of the claim form, along with the Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Loss and response pack on the Respondent on 27th November 2019. On 10th December 2019, the Respondent wrote to the Appellants stating the claim form had not been effectively served, and on 12th December 2019, the deadline for service of the claim form under jurisdiction, the Respondent notified the court that good service had not been effected by the Appellants. In January 2020, the Appellants served the sealed claim form on the Respondent, however the Respondent replied stating the claim form should have been served by 12th December 2019 under CPR 7.5 and indicated their intention to apply for the claim to be struck out.
CPR 7.5 requires that a claim form is served by the claimant on the opponent within 4 months of issue, with the claimant applying for an order to extend service of the claim form if the application is made promptly and all reasonable steps have been taken by the claimant to comply with CPR 7.5. On 24th January 2020, the Respondent made their application for the claim to be struck out due to non-compliance of CPR 7.5, and in August 2021, DJ Matharu struck out the Appellants’ claim. In April 2022, HHJ Evans granted the Appellants permission to appeal on the ground that the Respondent had accepted jurisdiction of the claim. The Appellant argued the case of Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [2008] was in favour of theirs, that the Respondent’s application for the claim to be struck out did not comply with CPR 11(1), as the Respondent did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction in the Acknowledgment of Service. HHJ Pearce dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Respondent’s application was made in compliance with CPR 11(1) as they did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction. In February 2023, the Appellant was granted permission for a second appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Ultimately, Lord Justice Gibson, Lord Justice Davies and Lord Underhill upheld HHJ Pearce’s decision and dismissed the Appellants’ appeal, stating the Appellants’ conduct with issuing and serving the claim form was in a class of its own, and the Respondent’s failure to reference CPR 11(1) did not have an effect on their application to strike out the claim due to the Appellants not serving the claim for in time.
How can PIC help?
PIC are here to advise on whether costs will be recoverable in following the outcome of hearings deriving from applications. Whether you are the claimant or defendant, appellant or respondent, we aim to maximise the recovery of costs with our team of drafters, negotiators and advocates.
Rebekkah Haughton, Costs Draftsperson
23.08.2023