Applications Before Issue, Service & Amendment of a Claim Form - Getting it Right

Introduction

The procedural rules about the service of the claim form are both complicated and lengthy. They govern one of the most critical areas in civil procedure yet, every year, cases reach the higher courts in which a claimant is either trying retrospectively to avoid the consequences of mistaken service or asking for latitude in being able to serve a claim in an alternative manner. Sometimes, it is necessary for uncertain claimants to use both approaches.

Equally troubling is the amendment of claims after service, the need for which can sometimes occur extremely late in the litigation process. This may be for good reason, to correct an oversight, or to expand the ambit of the claim. In what circumstances do courts typically permit the amendment of a claim; which tests must be satisfied?

Aimed at lawyers involved in pursuing or defending civil claims, this course will provide an outline of the possible applications that a claimant may make before the issue of a claim form, as well as looking at the main rules on service and the amendment of claims. It will work both as a refresher using illustrations, as well as updating delegates on some recent cases in these areas.

What You Will Learn

This course will cover the following:

Pre-action Applications by Claimants

• Pre-action disclosure applications (Wang v Otaibi)
• Holding remedies in advance of a claim
• Pre-claim information orders (EUI v UK Vodafone)
• Anonymity orders after Moss
• Permission to serve a claim form outside England and Wales

Service:

• The dual purposes behind service
• Relying on the court: waiting for a sealed copy before service: Walton v Pickering Solicitors
• Problems over service following the electronic issue of a claim form and payment of the court fee: Citysprint UK Limited v Barts Health NHS Trust
• Service by email: what is the correct interpretation of the requirements after the McAlpine case?
• Extensions for service after expiry of a limitation period: the Court of Appeal surprisingly backs the registrar, not the judge, in ST v BAI
• The perennial problem of serving ‘Persons Unknown’ as defendants

Amendment:

• ‘Late’ versus ‘very late’ amendments
• A reminder of the approach taken in Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International
• 21b, Johnny Rotten’s ‘kitchen nightmares’ in the courtroom: Jones v Lydon
• Martlet Homes v Mullaley & Co in the Court of Appeal: no new claims allowed in a Reply
• The unargued case: Satyam Enterprises v Burton lives on in the Chancery Division a year after the Court of Appeal
• Northumbria Health Trust v Lendlease - The impact of amendment on disclosure