The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1579 (KB)
Lynda Maxine Franka Joseph v McFaddens LLP
1 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2447 (Ch)
High Court
A person sued a law firm but filed their paperwork late. The court said the paperwork was too late and threw out the case. The court didn't excuse the lateness, even though the person claimed they were busy.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Litigant in Person) sued Defendant (law firm) for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and professional negligence.
- •Claimant served Particulars of Claim after the deadline for serving the Claim Form.
- •Defendant applied to decline jurisdiction or strike out the claim due to late service.
- •Claimant cross-applied for retrospective permission to serve Particulars of Claim and relief from sanctions.
- •The dispute centered on whether the deemed service date of the Claim Form extended the deadline for serving Particulars of Claim.
- •Previous claims between the parties existed (First Claim and Injunction Application).
Legal Principles
Particulars of Claim must be served no later than the latest time for serving the claim form.
CPR rule 7.4(2)
Deemed service rules (CPR 6.14, 6.26) specify when service is deemed to occur, but don't alter the deadline for taking the required step (CPR 7.5(1)).
CPR rules 6.14, 6.26, 7.5(1)
A deeming provision does not state absolute truth; it creates a legal fiction for limited purposes. Courts should avoid unjust, anomalous, or absurd results.
Howard Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland [2019] EWCA Civ 648; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Metrolands (Property Finance) Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 637
Applications for relief from sanctions are determined according to Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 principles (seriousness of breach, reason for breach, all circumstances).
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Outcomes
Court declined jurisdiction due to late service of Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant failed to serve the Particulars of Claim within the valid period of the Claim Form, regardless of whether the deemed service date is considered.
Claimant's application for retrospective extension of time and relief from sanctions dismissed.
The breach was serious and significant; the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient; and considering all the circumstances, relief was not warranted.
Similar Cases
Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 494 (Comm)
Suzanne Merrills, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
Tameside Caravans and Storage Limited v Viavecto Limited
[2024] EWHC 95 (KB)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)