• Latest tweets:

  • Peril of leaving (ineffective) service of litigation claim form to the last minute

    Posted on: June 12, 2019

    The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in the case of Woodward & anor. v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Limited. Lexlaw represented the Appellants in place of their former solicitors, Collyer Bristow.

    High Court Litigation Lawyers London Solicitors Barristers Court of Appeal Professional Negligence

    Background: Ineffective Service of the Claim Form

    Our client’s former solicitors (Collyer Bristow) ineffectively served a claim form and pleadings on the solicitors acting for Phoenix (Mills & Reeve), instead of serving on Phoenix directly. It is important to note both (i) that service of legal proceedings on the defendant is a critical procedural step for litigation claimants in England & Wales and (ii) that Mills & Reeve had not indicated that they had instructions to accept service in place of their client. Having been served ineffectively, Mills & Reeve’s client(s) decided not to alert Collyer Bristow until two days later, when the legal right to pursue the claim had expired by virtue of a limitation time bar.

    The claimants via Collyer Bristow (who continued to act in spite of a potential own interest conflict – given their ineffective service was potentially fatal to their clients’ claim) applied to the High Court in an effort to remedy their error. Master Bowles was minded to remedy the ineffective service of the claim form by Woodward’s former solicitors by retrospectively validating service per CPR 6.15(1) and (2).

    Phoenix appealed the Master’s decision to His Honour Judge David Hodge QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court), who allowed Phoenix’s appeal against the decision of Master Bowles following the Supreme Court decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR. Our clients, again via Collyer Bristow, then appealed the decision of HHJ Hodge QC to the Court of Appeal whereupon Lexlaw was instructed in place of Collyer Bristow.

    No duty to alert litigation opponent of their own procedural error

    The central question that the Court of Appeal was asked to consider was in what circumstances is it appropriate, on an application for retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15, to allow a defendant to take advantage of a mistake on the part of a claimant giving rise to defective service where any new claim would be time-barred.

    It was held that the Master was wrong to validate service of a claim form retrospectively under CPR r.6.15(2) where the defendant’s solicitors had allowed the validity of the claim form to expire before alerting the claimant to the fact that service had been ineffective. Mills & Reeve did not have a professional duty to draw attention to mistakes made by the other party in circumstances where the mistake was not of their making and arose in a situation not calling for a response. The Master had erred in holding that Mills & Reeve engaged in inappropriate “technical game playing” in breach of a duty owed to the court under the overriding objective (see CPR r.1.3).

    Woodward v Phoenix - Solicitor's Negligence
    Click above image to download full judgment in Woodward & anor. v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 985

    Counsel:
    For the appellant: David Berkley QC, Christopher Snell
    For the respondent: Andrew Onslow QC, Hannah Glover

    Solicitors:
    For the appellant: Lexlaw Solicitors & Advocates
    For the respondent: Mills & Reeve LLP

    Related Proceedings:
    Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd v Woodward [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch), [2018] 7 WLUK 635

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    The articles published on this website, current at the date of posting, are for reference purposes only and do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.

    Call us on ☎ 02071830529 or email us on for more information about the legal services we provide. Our team of London lawyers are based in Middle Temple adjacent to the Royal Courts of Justice. We are committed to providing professional and specialist legal advice.

     
    %d bloggers like this: