Barton v Wright Hassall LLP

Barton v Wright Hassall LLP

Ignorance of the rules by a litigant in person is not a good reason to validate non-compliant service under CPR 6.15(2). The fact that the claim form was brought to the defendant's attention is not sufficient. The rules are clear and accessible, and compliance is required of all parties. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Barton; Respondent: Wright Hassall LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Retrospective Validation of Service, Litigants in Person, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Service of Process Retrospective Validation of Service Litigants in Person Limitation Periods

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barton

Appellant

Wright Hassall LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should retrospectively validate non-compliant service of a claim form under CPR 6.15(2)
  2. 2 Whether ignorance of the rules by a litigant in person constitutes a good reason for validation
  3. 3 Whether bringing the claim form to the attention of the defendant is sufficient for validation

Ratio Decidendi

Ignorance of the rules by a litigant in person is not a good reason to validate non-compliant service under CPR 6.15(2). The fact that the claim form was brought to the defendant's attention is not sufficient. The rules are clear and accessible, and compliance is required of all parties. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.