Bringing claims in time - St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372

A claim is brought within time for limitation purposes so long as the claim form is delivered to the court during office hours by any means permitted by the rules prior to the expiration of the limitation period.  The date of issue stamped on the claim form is not determinative.  So held the Court of Appeal in St Helen’s Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372. 

In Barnes, the claim form was hand delivered to a clerk at the court office and stamped as received on the penultimate day of the limitation period.  However, it was not issued by the court staff until 4 days later, therefore outside of the limitation period.

CPR 7.2 says that proceedings are started when a claim form is issued and that a claim form is issued on the date entered on the form by the court.  However, paragraph 5 of the practice direction to CPR7 says that where the claim form as issued was received in the court on a date earlier that the date on which it was issued by the court, the claim is brought for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and any other relevant statutes on that earlier date. 

The practice direction also provides that the date on which the claim form was received by the court will be recorded by date stamp on the claim form held on the court file or the letter accompanying the claim form. 

Paragraph 5.4 also notes that parties should recognise the potential importance of establishing the date the claim form was received by the court and should themselves make arrangements to record the date.

The Court of Appeal decided only that claim forms actually delivered by any of the means permitted by the rules to the correct court office during the hours in which that court office is open would definitely fall under this rule.  It specifically reserved the position if delivery was made to the wrong place or outside office hours. 

In Van Aken v Camden London Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1724, delivery of a claim form to the court office outside of court hours was said to be sufficient to constitute “filing” of the claim form for the purposes of CPR 2.3(1).  That was a statutory claim under the Housing Act 1996 which required that “an appeal must be brought within 21 days of his being notified of the decision”.  The claim form was posted through the court’s letterbox at about 6.30pm.

PD52 required that the appeal be filed at the court office in order to be brought.  Filing is defined in CPR2.3 as “delivering” a document to the court office. Delivery in Van Aken is described as a unilateral not a transactional act – posting through the letterbox is enough. 

Rather than requiring that the claim form be filed (or delivered), the wording of paragraph 5 of PD7 requires that the claim form is received at the court office.  The argument would be whether “receipt” at the court office requires an act from the court office, which delivery does not.  If that is the test it must be a good argument that receipt by an office rather than an individual is also not a transactional act, it is completed once the claim form has bee posted through the letter box.

So if the worst happens, post the claim form through the letter box and make a statement as to the time and date it was delivered.  You may just get away with it.

Lisa Sullivan