Email: Attachment was not sufficient to count as filing
The High Court did not “receive” a claim form that was not properly e-filed by a litigant in person (LiP) wanting to sue her former solicitors, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Lady Justice Asplin compared attaching a claim form to an email to the court office, when there was no fee remission involved, as “similar to handing documents to a member of court staff in the corridor and then contending that they have been filed”.
In August 2021, Jian Guo made “various attempts to file a claim form” for a professional negligence action she intended to bring against Lancaster-based law firm Oglethorpe, Sturton & Gillibrand over advice on the assignment of the lease of a property given in summer 2015.
On 4 August, she emailed QB Issue and Enquiries to say she was having problems filing her claim and asked if she might “file this case through email”, and attached the claim form.
The court office provided guidance that said LiPs were encouraged to file electronically but provided alternatives if it was not possible – post, with a cheque or fee remission certificate, or by email only if accompanied with a fee remission certificate, or in person, again with fee payment or certificate.
Later in that afternoon, Ms Gau was told a second attempt to file electronically had failed because the document was not a claim form.
She paid the issue fee of £7,500 the following day but she did not file another claim form until 25 August 2021. There were various problems with this too and it was eventually accepted by the clerk on 1 September.
The claim was transferred to Preston County Court, where the law firm successfully applied for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred, a decision upheld on first appeal – the cut-off date for limitation purposes was held to be 21 August 2021.
Lord Justice Birss granted permission to appeal just on the issue of filing the claim form.
The CPR provide that, where a claim form is received in the court office earlier than the date on which it is issued, claim is ‘brought’ for the purposes of limitation on the earlier date.
Counsel for Ms Guo argued that because the claim form attached to Ms Guo’s email of 4 August was “substantially the same” as the one which was dated 25 August, the first claim form could be treated as the claim form ‘as issued’.
He also argued that the court’s inherent jurisdiction could be applied where a litigant “has done all that they ought to have done to commence proceedings and the injustice arises as a result of delay or error in the court office with the effect that the proceedings are brought after the limitation period has elapsed”.
Giving the Court of Appeal’s unanimous ruling, Lady Justice Asplin agreed with counsel for the law firm that a claim form was not “properly delivered to the court office on 4 August 2021 at all” and so not received for the purposes of the CPR.
“In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Ms Guo had done everything which she ought to have done and that the court office was in error in not issuing the claim form of 4 August.”
Asplin LJ noted that the email option was only available if the email was accompanied by a fee remission certificate. “In this case, it was not. Rather than seeking remission of fees, Ms Guo intended to pay them and £7,500 was debited from her bank account.”
As suggested during hearing of the appeal by Lord Justice Nugee, Asplin LJ said “attaching a claim form to an email to the court office is similar to handing documents to a member of court staff in the corridor and then contending that they have been filed”.
Ms Guo “did not follow the guidance which she was given and do all that she was required to do on 4 August 2021 or before the expiry of the limitation period”. The court dismissed the appeal.
Leave a Comment