Barton v Wright Hassall LLP

Barton v Wright Hassall LLP

There was no good reason to validate service under CPR 6.15(2) because the claimant, despite being a litigant in person, had ample opportunity to serve the claim form properly, was aware of the rules, and the defendant's solicitors did not engage in technical game-playing or mislead the claimant. The mere fact that the documents came to the defendant's attention and the claimant's unrepresented status were insufficient to justify retrospective validation of service.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Barton; Respondent: Wright Hassall LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Litigants in Person, Relief From Sanctions, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Service of Process Litigants in Person Relief From Sanctions Professional Negligence

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Barton

Appellant

Wright Hassall LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should validate service of a claim form under CPR 6.15(2) where the claimant, a litigant in person, served by email without prior written consent from the defendant's solicitors and after the limitation period expired.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason to validate service under CPR 6.15(2) because the claimant, despite being a litigant in person, had ample opportunity to serve the claim form properly, was aware of the rules, and the defendant's solicitors did not engage in technical game-playing or mislead the claimant. The mere fact that the documents came to the defendant's attention and the claimant's unrepresented status were insufficient to justify retrospective validation of service.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed