High Court Judge Rules Amended Claim Form Valid

- 6 Comments

A High Court judge has appealed for clarification on the issue of whether parties can amend claim forms that have already been served. Mrs Justice Heather Williams opted to uphold the decision of Senior Master Cook in Beckett v Graham & Anor to rule that an amended claim form was validly served.

The judge endorsed Cook’s observation after the first instance hearing that the issue needs to be considered by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Cook had said: ‘It is unfortunate the relevant provisions of the CPR are not expressed with the clarity which would have avoided this situation… the rules should be clear and accessible to all who have cause to use them.’

The court heard that the CPRC is considering re-drafting Practice Direction 51O and incorporating it into the mainstream Civil Procedure Rules.

The dispute had arisen following the service of a claim form by a former employee of the Unite union. When the claimant’s solicitors filed a claim form in the Liverpool District Registry, the claim was described as one for libel in respect of words published following an executive council meeting.

The court sealed the claim form on 5 June 2024, giving the claimant four months to serve the claim on the defendants in accordance with the rules.

Three days before the deadline, the claimant’s solicitors amended the claim form: the previous 'Brief details of claim' referring to the claim in libel were struck through and an additional page was inserted indicating that the claim was for damages for misuse of private information in respect of information said to have been disclosed to the press. The amended claim form was sent and received within the four-month deadline.

A week after service, the defendants’ solicitors responded, disputing that valid service had taken place as, amongst other reasons, the amended claim form had not been filed with the court before the purported service had taken place. An application was made to declare that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim and to set aside the amended claim form which the claimant had purportedly served.

In court, the defendants tried to cite ‘unhappy consequences’ if a claim form amended without permission did not have to be filed with the court.

But Senior Master Cook dismissed the defendants’ application and ordered they should pay 90% of the claimant’s costs of around £90,000. Mrs Justice Heather Williams agreed there was no obligation on the claimant to file the amended claim form with the court and ruled it had been validly served. The appeal was dismissed.

- 6 Comments