Civil Procedure: Barton v Wright Hassall LLP (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a Claimant who failed to validly serve his claim form on the Defendant's solicitors.

By a majority of three to two, it was held that emailing the claim form in the absence of an agreement from a defendant to accept service by that method was not valid service, nor would it be subsequently validated by the Court.

Lord Sumption made clear that litigants in person are not a special category and should not be treated as such in relation to the application of the CPR. Furthermore, it was not stated that the CPR requires a fundamental rewrite in order to make them easier to navigate for those without legal representation.

Background

The Claimant, a litigant in person, lodged an appeal against his former legal representatives in a claim for professional negligence. His former representatives instructed solicitors to defend the claim. The Claimant elected to serve the claim form himself.

On the day prior to the end of the limitation period, and without confirmation that service by email would be accepted, the Claimant emailed the claim form to the solicitors. No response was received until approximately 2 weeks later, when the solicitors stated service by email was not accepted. Therefore, in the absence of valid service, the claim was now time barred.

The Claimant argued that the service was valid, referring to the previous course of dealings by email with the solicitors. In the alternative, he sought an extension of the validity of the claim form, or, pursuant to CPR 6.15, an order that the service by email be validated.

The District Judge rejected these arguments, but allowed the Claimant to appeal the issue of whether the purported service by email should be validated. The Circuit Judge agreed with the first instance decision and found there was no good reason to validate the service.

The Court of Appeal agreed. The Claimant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Judgment

Lord Sumption, giving the lead judgment, agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, and dismissed the appeal. He stated that it is not unreasonable to expect litigants in person to familiarise themselves with the appropriate rules. Mr Barton had assumed that service by email was acceptable. The solicitors had not, contrary to the submissions of the Claimant, attempted to use the Claimant's standing as a litigant in person against him.

Mr Barton had elected to serve the claim form close to limitation. He was an experienced litigant...