Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 177 (23 March 2016)

Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 177 (23 March 2016)

There was no good reason to validate service by email under CPR 6.15(2) as the claimant had ample opportunity to serve properly within the prescribed period, and ignorance of the rules by a litigant in person does not constitute a good reason. The defendant's conduct did not amount to technical game-playing and did not justify retrospective validation of service.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 177
Parties
Appellant: Mark Barton; Respondent: Wright Hassall LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, CPR 6.15, Litigants in Person, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Service of Claim Form CPR 6.15 Litigants in Person 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Barton

Appellant

Wright Hassall LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether steps taken to serve the claim form by email should be validated as good service under CPR 6.15(2)
  2. 2 Whether ignorance of service rules by a litigant in person constitutes a good reason for validating service

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason to validate service by email under CPR 6.15(2) as the claimant had ample opportunity to serve properly within the prescribed period, and ignorance of the rules by a litigant in person does not constitute a good reason. The defendant's conduct did not amount to technical game-playing and did not justify retrospective validation of service.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed