The Good Law Project (R on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

The Good Law Project (R on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

The judge did not err in refusing to authorise alternative service or extend time for service. The claimant’s solicitors failed to take reasonable steps to effect valid service, the error was careless, and retrospective validation would deprive the defendant of a limitation defence. The principles of CPR 7.6 apply by analogy to judicial review claims, and unless all reasonable steps were taken, time should not be extended. The judge’s exercise of discretion was within the proper ambit and not wrong in law or principle.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Good Law Project; Defendant/respondent: The 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 Judgment Refusing to Cure Defective Service, Authorise Alternative Service, or Extend Time for Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Extension of Time, Alternative Service, Limitation Periods, Case Management Powers
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Public Procurement Service of Process Extension of Time Alternative Service Limitation Periods Case Management Powers

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 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Good Law Project

Claimant/appellant

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Defendant/respondent

Pharmaceuticals Direct Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing to Cure Defective Service, Authorise Alternative Service, or Extend Time for Service of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should retrospectively authorise service at an alternative place under CPR 6.15
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend time for service of the 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 authorise alternative service or extend time for service. The claimant’s solicitors failed to take reasonable steps to effect valid service, the error was careless, and retrospective validation would deprive the defendant of a limitation defence. The principles of CPR 7.6 apply by analogy to judicial review claims, and unless all reasonable steps were taken, time should not be extended. The judge’s exercise of discretion was within the proper ambit and not wrong in law or principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no retrospective validation of service; no extension of time for service; claim form set aside for want of jurisdiction