Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 215 (04 March 2026)

Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 215 (04 March 2026)

Failure to pay the correct fee for issue of the claim form means the action is not 'brought' for limitation purposes when the claim form is received; the court has no jurisdiction to backdate the issue date or treat the action as brought earlier; procedural unfairness occurred due to lack of notice to the First Defendant; the Judge's findings were unsupported and must be set aside.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 215
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Valery Siniakovich; Defendant/appellant: Nivin Hassan Hassan-Soudey (aka Sarah Hamilton); Defendant/appellant: Glass Door Homeless Charity; Defendant/appellant: Matthew Falk
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Court Fees, Relief From Sanctions, Defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Injunctive Relief, Case Management Powers
Civil Procedure Defamation Data Protection Limitation Period Court Fees Relief From Sanctions Malicious Falsehood Injunctive Relief +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valery Siniakovich

Claimant/respondent

Nivin Hassan Hassan-Soudey (aka Sarah Hamilton)

Defendant/appellant

Glass Door Homeless Charity

Defendant/appellant

Matthew Falk

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does failure to pay the correct fee for issue of the claim form mean an action is not 'brought' for limitation purposes when the claim form is received in the court office?
  2. 2 Did the High Court have jurisdiction to grant relief to treat the claim as issued on an earlier date?
  3. 3 Was there procedural unfairness due to lack of notice to the First Defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to pay the correct fee for issue of the claim form means the action is not 'brought' for limitation purposes when the claim form is received; the court has no jurisdiction to backdate the issue date or treat the action as brought earlier; procedural unfairness occurred due to lack of notice to the First Defendant; the Judge's findings were unsupported and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the High Court Order struck out.
  • Declaration that the action was not brought within the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood claims.