Dr Sanjay Pitalia & Anor v NHS England
[2023] EWCA Civ 657
Houda Chehaib v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors
5 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 2 (KB)
High Court
A lawyer accidentally emailed a court document to the wrong person, missing the deadline. The judge refused to fix the mistake because there are strict rules about serving court papers on time, and ignoring those rules could let the person being sued avoid the case completely. The judge stressed the importance of following all the rules carefully.
Key Facts
- •Claimant issued a claim for clinical negligence against three defendants on August 2, 2021.
- •Service of the claim form on the second defendant was attempted via email on the final day of validity (March 30, 2023), contrary to prior instructions to serve by post.
- •The claimant subsequently applied for relief from sanctions and a declaration that the claim form was validly served.
- •The second defendant issued a cross-application for strike-out of the claim, challenging the court's jurisdiction.
- •The claimant argued for relief under CPR 3.9, 3.10, and 6.15(2).
Legal Principles
An expired claim form can, in some circumstances, be revived.
Pitalia & Anor v NHS England [2023] EWCA Civ 657
CPR rules should be viewed holistically as an integrated code of procedure.
Pitalia & Anor v NHS England [2023] EWCA Civ 657
Applications to extend time for serving a claim form should be made within 4 months of issue; exceptions exist for court default or claimant taking all reasonable steps.
CPR 7.6(3), ST v (t/a) Brittany Ferries [2022] EWCA Civ 1037
The court has discretion to grant relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, considering seriousness of breach, good reason, and all circumstances.
CPR 3.9, Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906
CPR 3.10 allows the court to remedy procedural errors; however, it cannot override specific rules on service of claim forms.
CPR 3.10, Ideal Shopping Direct Limited And Others v Mastercard Incorporated And Others [2022] EWCA Civ 14
CPR 6.15(2) allows the court to order that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant are good service, if there is good reason.
CPR 6.15(2), Abela and others v Baadarani and another [2013] UKSC 44, Barton (Appellant) v Wright Hassall LLP (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 12
Service of originating process requires utmost diligence; a bright line rule is necessary to determine when limitation periods begin/end.
Good Law 1, Barton (Appellant) v Wright Hassall LLP (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 12
Outcomes
Claimant's applications under CPR 3.9, 3.10, and 6.15(2) dismissed.
CPR 3.9 is inappropriate for addressing invalid service; the breach was serious and there was no good reason. CPR 3.10 cannot override specific service rules. Under CPR 6.15(2), no good reason existed for the invalid service, and the defendant would suffer prejudice by losing a limitation defense.