Supreme Court Rulings

[Cpt Morgan]

Hello,

Can someone advise on the supreme court ruling that advised that it was NOT a valid excuse for a layman to not understand CPR rules and therefore not be held accountable for not following them.

I was in court the other day, and the judge ruled that it was not acceptable for a layman (the defendant) to have not followed CPR rules (in relation to document filing) and therefore it was his opinion that it was a serious breach of CPR rules and that the defendant must apply for relief from sanctions. Basically the defendant did not file his defence on time because he sent by email and did not ensure I was able to accept by email, which I am not. His defence barrister claimed his client was not aware of the 'rules' by way of an excuse, but the judge was not happy, and referenced a supreme court ruling that stated it was not acceptable that a layman should use his ignorance of the law as a reason for not doing something, and I wanted to get a copy of the supreme court ruling. The judge in my case stood by the supreme courts outcome and advised he was NOT in a position to overrule and therefore the defendant must apply for relief from sanctions and that he saw the breach as serious, especially as he gave the barrister the chance to agree on 2 occasions but he refused.

[dslippy]

I am not sure that you need such a ruling. It seems obvious that a litigant in person must follow the rules in the same way as an assisted party. Indeed I cannot see how this would be a question worthy of a Supreme Court ruling.

[des8]

Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12

Para 18 & 42 of the judgment

[atticus]

Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12 - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/12.html

Lord Sumption in para 18:

"The rules provide a framework within which to balance the interest of both sides. That balance is inevitably disturbed if an unrepresented litigant is entitled to greater indulgence in complying with them than his represented opponent. Any advantage enjoyed by a litigant in person imposes a corresponding disadvantage on the other side, which may be significant if it affects the latter’s legal rights, under the Limitation Acts for example. Unless the rules and practice directions are particularly inaccessible or obscure, it is reasonable to expect a litigant in person to familiarise himself with the rules which apply to any step which he is about to take."


Ha! Des8 got there while I was writing the above.

[dslippy]

Here is what I have: Barton v Wright Hassall Llp: SC 21 Feb 2018

The claimant, a litigant in person purported to serve his statement of claim by email, but had not first sought the defendant’s agreement as required. The solicitors allowed the limitation period to expire without acknowledging service. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out for limitation.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision was one made in the discretion of the court. What constitutes ‘good reason’ for validating the non-compliant service of a claim form is essentially a matter of factual evaluation. The main factors, the weight of which will vary with the circumstances, are likely to be: (i) whether the claimant took reasonable steps to serve in accordance with the rules; (ii) whether the defendant or his solicitor knew of the contents of the claim form when it expired; (iii) what, if any, prejudice the defendant would suffer from validation of the non-compliant service.
‘there is a disciplinary factor in the decision whether to impose or relieve from sanctions for non-compliance with rules or orders of the court, which has become increasingly significant in recent years with the growing pressure of business in the courts. CPR rule 6.15 is rather different. It is directed specifically to the rules governing service of a claim form. They give rise to special considerations which do not necessarily apply to other formal documents or to other rules or orders of the court. The main difference is that the disciplinary factor is less important. The rules governing service of a claim form do not impose duties, in the sense in which, say, the rules governing the time for the service of evidence, impose a duty. They are simply conditions on which the court will take cognisance of the matter at all. Although the court may dispense with service altogether or make interlocutory orders before it has happened if necessary, as a general rule service of originating process is the act by which the defendant is subjected to the court’s jurisdiction.’
Otherwise: Barton v Wright Hassal Llp

Baroness Hale of Richmond, PSC Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs JJSC
[2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119, [2018] WLR(D) 116, [2018] 3 All ER 487, UKSC 2016/0136
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, Video 22 Nov 2017 am, Video 22 Nov 2017 pm, WLRD
Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Application for Leave – Barton v Wright Hassall Solicitors Llp CA 16-Jun-2015
Application for leave to appeal . .
At CA – Barton v Wright Hassall Llp CA 23-Mar-2016
Application under CPR 6.15(2) for an order that steps already taken to bring a claim form to the attention of the defendant, but falling short of good service under the CPR, shall count as good service. . .
Cited – Prince Abdulaziz v Apex Global Management Ltd and Another SC 26-Nov-2014
The appellant was involved in very substantial litigation with the respondents. As a member of the Saudi Royal family he said that by convention he was not allowed to sign a witness statement, and appealed inter alia against orders requiring him to . .
Cited – Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others CA 4-Jul-2014
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance:
Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or . .
Cited – Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc CA 24-Jan-2001
Where a claim form is served in time but is incorrectly served (in this case on the defendants’ insurers instead of on the defendants themselves), there is no power in the court under CPR 3.10(b) (remedy of errors of procedure) or CPR 6.8 (service . .
Cited – Abela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Cited – Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson Solicitors CA 2-Jul-2014
The court itself had failed to effect proper service because of an administrative error.
Held: The Court rejected the submission that the claimant need not necessarily demonstrate that there was no way in which he could have effected service . .
Cited – Nata Lee Ltd v Abid and Another CA 18-Dec-2014
The Court pointed to the need to treat litigants in person in the same was as others: ‘ the fact that a party (whether an individual or a corporate body) is not professionally represented is not of itself a reason for the disapplication of rules, . .
Cited – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

[dslippy]

My note is at
https://swarb.co.uk/barton-v-wright-...c-21-feb-2018/

My reading was that the fault had to be treated differently because it affected limitation rights. That the appellant was LIP, was secondary.

[atticus]

Lord Sumption used limitation rights as an example of legal rights that might be affected.

[EXC]

dslippy your post (#5) got grabbed by our spam filter for some reason so I've fixed it.