Eric Walton v Pickerings Solicitors & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 602
Raymond Clewer v Higgs & Sons (A Firm)
27 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1556 (Ch)
High Court
Mr. Clewer missed a deadline to file his lawsuit properly. Even though he later got a fee waiver, he still hadn't filed the correct documents on time, so the judge threw out his case.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Clewer appealed Deputy Master Marsh's decision that his negligence claim against Higgs & Sons was automatically struck out due to non-compliance with an unless order.
- •The unless order, issued by Deputy Master Hansen, required service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim and payment of a court fee by 4pm on 1 November 2020.
- •Mr. Clewer, acting as a litigant in person after a falling out with his solicitors, attempted to comply with the order through various actions involving a non-solicitor, Mr. Shrimpton.
- •These actions included sending a fee exemption application (Form EX160), an amended Claim Form (unsealed), and Particulars of Claim.
- •Deputy Master Marsh found that Mr. Clewer had not complied with the order because the Claim Form was unsealed, the Particulars of Claim were effectively worthless without a served Claim Form, and the court fee was not paid.
- •Subsequent events revealed that Mr. Clewer's fee exemption application was eventually approved, and the Court later sealed the amended Claim Form, dating it 31 October 2020.
- •The appeal focused on two grounds: (1) whether the unsealed Claim Form constituted sufficient service, and (2) whether the fee exemption application equated to payment of the fee.
Legal Principles
A claim form must be sealed before it can be validly served.
CPR rule 2.6(1) and 7.5; Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v. Mastercard Inc. [2022] EWCA Civ. 14
Amending a claim form does not remove the requirement to serve a sealed claim form.
Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v. Mastercard Inc. [2022] EWCA Civ. 14
The court has discretion to allow reference on appeal to evidence not before the lower court, considering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.
CPR rule 52.21(2)(b); Ladd v. Marshall; Sharab v. Al-Saud [2009] EWCA Civ. 353
The court has jurisdiction to backdate the sealing and issue of documents to correct administrative errors, to avoid injustice.
Riniker v. University College London (31 March 1999); Aly v Aly (1 January 1984)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the court agreed that the fee exemption application could be considered payment of the fee (Ground 7), the unsealed Claim Form meant the service requirement was not met (Ground 6). The court found that the later sealing of the form, though improperly delayed, did not retroactively satisfy the original deadline.
Similar Cases
Suzanne Merrills, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
Dr Sanjay Pitalia & Anor v NHS England
[2023] EWCA Civ 657
Bauhaus Educational Services Limited v Oluwaseyi Elemide
[2023] EAT 161
Houda Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2 (KB)