Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Johnersh

As @Grizebeck says.

Court authorities are published. There is no need to supply them all. C can look them up! You can easily refer to them without putting them in a statement.

It is common to agree an authorities bundle for use at the hearing. So, later on, they can go in the trial file (which the claimant should prepare) and you could in any case bring them to the hearing at that point. No one is disadvantaged as you'd merely be reading from the cases referred to long beforehand. 

Harvez63

So if I’m reading that correct, just remove them as exhibits but still refer to them in the statement? 

Appreciate both your help

Grizebeck

Harvez63 said:

So if I’m reading that correct, just remove them as exhibits but still refer to them in the statement? 

Appreciate both your help

Yup thats right

Harvez63

Thank you @Grizebeck

Harvez63

Morning All, 

Just to be 100% before I resubmit and remove them as physical exhibits, is the body of the relevant case laws within my witness statement OK? Snippet below; 

Relevant Case Law

12. I am appending four case law authorities to support the argument that an un-served claim is ‘dead’ and the court cannot resurrect it after the CPR’s ‘strict and mandated 4 month period for service. 

13. There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), which is a reminder of the strictness of the requirements of CPR 7.6 and how difficult it is to use other parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify a failure to serve the claim form within the requisite period: “A claimant is not entitled to rely on the wide, general powers under CPR 3.10 or CPR 3.9 to circumvent the specific conditions set out in CPR 7.6(3) for extending the period for service of a claim form…” 

14. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 the Court of Appeal considered whether any extension of time should be granted under CPR 7.6 in circumstances where the defendant had been notified of the issue of a claim form but the claim form had not been served within four months as required by CPR 7.5 and the application was made after expiry of that period. The court refused to grant relief on the basis that it did not have power to do so. 

15. In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant and the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. In section 65 of the transcript of the trial (which is attached) Deputy Master Marsh stated “The defendants were entitled to know within the four month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out."   

16. In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) (see exhibit 06) the High Court  refused the Claimant’s application for a retrospective extension of time to serve a Claim Form after the Claimant failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the Claim form in the period of its validity.

“Ultimately, the problem was that the Claimant had made no attempt to serve in accordance with the rules…Although I sympathise with the Claimant that the consequences for him of the error of not validly serving the Claim Form will be serious, there is nothing that really separates his case from many others who have made similar mistakes when attempting to serve a Claim Form…I am afraid, in this case, the responsibility for the failure validly to serve the Claim Form rests solely with the Claimant’s side…

In light of my conclusions above, having refused the applications made under CPR 7.6, 6.15 and 6.16, there is not a residual self-standing power available under CPR 3.9 to relieve the claimant of the “sanction” that, as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form. The obstacle standing in the way of a claim is not any sanction imposed by the Court but the fact that the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood has expired.

Finally, the Claimant seeks an order under CPR 3.10 remedying his error in not validly serving the Claim Form. The Defendants submit that CPR 3.10 cannot rescue the Claimant. This general provision does not enable the Court to do what CPR 7.6(3) forbids: Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784; [2001] CP Rep 12 [20].”

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, “The Claim Form was not served during its period of validity. In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim. It follows that I should also formally dismiss the Claimant’s application for summary judgment.”

The Claim is Dead

Grizebeck

Yes looks good

Harvez63

Thanks again @Grizebeck

Seems odd to me from the outside, they have a 10mb receive limit on documents. But who am I 

Coupon-mad

You are not 'appending' them if you aren't.

Don't forget you WILL need to append them to a skeleton argument later, as seen on other CCJ set aside threads such as by @Jack5656

Harvez63

@Coupon-mad I made some tweaks and happily emailed everything back to the court, minus the actual case laws as exhibits. I've kept them for the future skeleton argument, thank you for the advise as I would have probably binned them, then had all the stress of trying to find them online again. 

Now to sit back and wait another 3 weeks I guess 

I did panic slightly thinking the email was showing as 8mb in draft, and sometimes when its sent they actually increase in the previously shown size, but I've checked and it stayed 8mb so it should conform now 

Coupon-mad

@Brokenchief provided links to all 4 case authorities in his thread, so no-one has to search for the transcripts!  That is why we suggest people look to that thread as guidance and I assume we did , earlier in this thread?