Barton v Wright Hassall LLP - [2018] UKSC 12

Hilary Term

[2018] UKSC 12

On appeals from: [2016] EWCA Civ 177

JUDGMENT

Barton (Appellant) v Wright Hassall LLP (Respondent)

before

Lady Hale, President

Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Carnwath
Lord Briggs

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

21 February 2018

Heard on 22 November 2017

Appellant Respondent

Howard Elgot Michael Pooles QC
Abigail Telford Henry Bankes-Jones

(Instructed by Direct

(Instructed by Berrymans

Access) Lace Mawer LLP

(Manchester))

LORD SUMPTION: (with whom Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath agree)

1. The appellant, a litigant in person, purported to serve the claim form in these proceedings on the defendant’s solicitors by email, without obtaining any prior

indication that they were prepared to accept service by that means. It is common ground that this was not good service. As a result, the claim form expired unserved on the following day. The question at issue on this appeal is whether the Court should exercise its power retrospectively to validate service. To date, the District Judge, the County Court judge and the Court of Appeal have declined to do so. If their order stands, the result will be that Mr Barton can proceed with his claim only by a fresh action. The present appeal has been conducted on the assumption that such an action would be statute-barred.

The facts

2. Mr Barton has been locked in litigation for the past 12 years with two firms of solicitors who have successively acted for him. In October 2005, he brought an action in the Coventry County Court against a firm called Bowen Johnsons, which had acted for him in 1999 in proceedings for ancillary relief following his divorce. He alleged that they had failed properly to protect his interests in the drawing of the consent order by which those proceedings were terminated. The respondent, Wright Hassall LLP, acted for him in the litigation against Bowen Johnsons until 17 May 2007, when they were taken off the record on their own application by order of the District Judge, after an acrimonious dispute about fees. Mr Barton had resisted that application, and costs were awarded against him. His appeal to the County Court judge against the costs order was dismissed, also with costs, on 14 December 2007. In the meantime, acting in person, he had settled the proceedings against Bowen Johnsons on terms which were embodied in a consent order.

3. There followed two actions between Mr Barton and Wright Hassall. In the first, Wright Hassall claimed their costs of acting for him before they came off the record, and obtained summary judgment. The second was the present action for professional negligence against the firm, which Mr Barton, acting in person, began by a claim form issued on 25 February 2013. In it, he alleged that Wright Hassall were in breach of their duties to him in their conduct of the action against Bowen Johnsons and in coming off the record at the time that they did. He claimed damages consisting in the difference between the value of the settlement and what…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barton v Wright Hassall LLP

Details

AGLC: Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12
Case: [2018] UKSC 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Barton v Wright Hassall LLP, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which the Court should validate the non-compliant service of a claim form. The appellant, Barton, had attempted to serve the claim form on the respondent’s solicitors by email, without obtaining any prior indication that they were prepared to accept service by that means. The claim form expired unserved the following day. The Court of Appeal had declined to validate the service, and Barton appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard by Lady Hale, and Lords Wilson, Sumption, Carnwath and Briggs. The Supreme Court found that there was no good reason to validate the non-compliant service, and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the fact that the respondent had been made aware of the claim and the contents of the claim form was not sufficient reason to validate service. Instead, the Court must consider the reasons for the failure to comply with the rules, and whether there were other factors which should be taken into account. The Court held that the failure to comply with the rules in this case was not excusable, and the result was that Barton would need to start a new action.

Orders