Barton (Appellant) v Wright Hassall LLP (Respondent)
Case ID: UKSC 2016/0136
- the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the judgment of the courts below that there was no good reason to validate service under 6.15 of the Civil Procedure Rules;
- the Court of Appeal’s reasoning breached the appellant's Article 6 and Article 13 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights; and
- the costs awarded by the Court of Appeal to the respondent were disproportionate to the work undertaken.
The appellant was a litigant in person. He wishes to bring professional negligence proceedings against the respondent. The appellant sent an email to the respondent's solicitors stating that the claim form and particulars was attached to the email by means of service. The appellant received a substantive response only after the expiry of the limitation period, whereby the respondent's solicitors stated that email was not a permitted method of service under the Civil Procedure Rules. As a result, the appellant was out of time to serve the claim form. The appellant sought a court order under CPR 6.15 that his service of the claim form was good service. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and held that the judge in the court below was entitled to find that there was no good reason to validate service.
Wright Hassall LLP
Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs
Hearing start date
22 Nov 2017
Hearing finish date
22 Nov 2017
|22 Nov 2017||Morning session||Afternoon session|