The Good Law Project, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health And Social Care )(Rev1) [2022] EWCA Civ 355 (24 March 2022)

The Good Law Project, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Health And Social Care )(Rev1) [2022] EWCA Civ 355 (24 March 2022)

The judge did not err in refusing to retrospectively authorise service at an alternative place under CPR 6.15 or to extend time for service under CPR 3.1(2)(a). The claimant failed to take reasonable steps to effect valid service, the error was serious and careless, and the only prejudice to the defendant was loss of a limitation defence, which is a relevant consideration. The principles of CPR 7.6, though not directly applicable, should inform the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(a) for judicial review claims. Strict compliance with service rules is required, and the public interest nature of the claim does not justify relaxation of those rules.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 355
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Good Law Project; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Interested Party: Pharmaceuticals Direct Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (tcc) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Alternative Service, Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Case Management Powers, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Public Law Judicial Review Public Procurement Service of Claim Form Extension of Time Alternative Service Public Contracts Regulations 2015 +2 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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Good Law Project

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Defendant/respondent

Pharmaceuticals Direct Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (tcc) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should retrospectively authorise service of a judicial review claim form at an alternative place under CPR 6.15
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend time for service of a judicial review claim form under CPR 3.1(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the principles of CPR 7.6 apply to judicial review claims under CPR 54.7

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in refusing to retrospectively authorise service at an alternative place under CPR 6.15 or to extend time for service under CPR 3.1(2)(a). The claimant failed to take reasonable steps to effect valid service, the error was serious and careless, and the only prejudice to the defendant was loss of a limitation defence, which is a relevant consideration. The principles of CPR 7.6, though not directly applicable, should inform the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(a) for judicial review claims. Strict compliance with service rules is required, and the public interest nature of the claim does not justify relaxation of those rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No retrospective authorisation of service at an alternative place under CPR 6.15
  • No extension of time for service of the claim form under CPR 3.1(2)(a)