Judgment Summary:

 

Title and neutral citation:

Arnold Holdings Ltd v Keelys [2025] EWCC 44

Date of judgment hand down: 

29 July 2025 by Her Honour Judge Saira Singh.

Court: 

Birmingham County Court

Legal issue:

The issue centred on whether the Claimant had taken all reasonable steps to effect service of the Claim Form in circumstances where the Court made an administrative error.

Background:

Arnold Holdings instructed solicitors to pursue a professional negligence claim against Keelys for £572,500 in relation to legal advice provided by Keelys for a commercial property transaction in 2017. The Claim Form was lodged on 20 June 2023 but not issued until 13 July 2023. The Claimant indicated that they would serve the claim themselves, but despite this, the Court erroneously attempted to serve the Claim Form directly on Keelys in mid-July 2023. 

Despite repeated requests, the Court did not send the Claimant a copy of the sealed Claim Form. On 17 October 2023, the Claimant served Keelys with an unsealed copy of the Claim Form.

The Claimant then applied for a retrospective extension of time to serve the Claim Form. This was refused in the District Court. The District Court held that the fact that the Court failed in its administrative duties was not a complete defence if the Claimant did not pursue every possible procedural safeguard. 

The Claimant appealed this decision.

The appeal grounds:

The Appellant appealed the District Court’s decision, arguing:

  1. Whether the Claimant/Appellant took ‘all reasonable steps’ to serve the Claim Form within the period specified in CPR 7.5(1);
  2. Whether the District Court erred in law in dismissing the Claimant’s application; and
  3. Whether the Claimant’s communications and related attempts with the Court were sufficient to satisfy CPR 7.6(3)(b).

Legal test:

Civil Procedure Rules (hereinafter the 'CPR') 7.6(3)(b) allows the court to grant a retrospective extension of time for service of a claim form only if the claimant can show that they took all reasonable steps to serve the claim within the time permitted in CPR 7.5 but were unable to do so.

Before the County Court, the Appellant contended that (i) it had relied on the evidence of its solicitors and (ii) the failure to effect service in proper form was caused by the Court’s administrative errors, which the District Court failed to take into account.

The Respondent contended that the Claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to effect service within the four-month period.

Outcome:

On appeal, HHJ Singh noted the administrative errors on the Court’s part; however, the Claimant had in fact been aware of the issue since July 2023 and took no meaningful action until October 2023.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Important note:

This judgment can be regarded as a warning that even where there are serious administrative errors on the court’s part, parties are not absolved of their obligations under the CPR. 

Deficiencies in the court system are not a reason to fail to meet the strict requirements in the CPR. Practitioners ought to do everything they reasonably can to resolve situations their clients might face, and administrative errors on the court’s part will not save a claim if the claimant fails to act.