| LIMITATION OF ACTION — Period of limitation — Bringing of action — Claimant lodging claim form and request for its issue at court office one day before expiry of limitation period — Claim form not issued until after expiry of limitation period — Whether claim “brought” within limitation period — Limitation Act 1980, s 11(3)
Barnes v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1372
CA: Tuckey, Arden and Lloyd LJJ: 25 October 2006
An action was “brought”, within the meaning of s 11(3) of the Limitation Act 1980, when the claimant’s request for the issue of a claim form, together with the court fee, was delivered to the court office, not when the claim form was subsequently issued by the court.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing the appeal of the defendant, St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, against a declaration made by Judge Macmillan in the Liverpool County Court on 10 March 2006 that the claimant, William Barnes, had brought his claim against the defendant for damages for personal injuries within the statutory limitation period.
TUCKEY LJ said that on the day before the expiry of the statutory limitation period, the claimant’s solicitor had attended at the county court offices where he had handed to a clerk a claim form and court fee together with a letter requesting that the claim form be issued. Due to industrial action on the next day, the claim form was not issued until after the limitation period had expired. The question was when was a claim “brought” for the purpose of s 11(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 under the procedural regime introduced by the CPR? Was it on the date which appeared on the claim form when the court issued it and the proceedings were “started” as provided by CPR r 7.2, or was it when the court received the request to issue it? His Lordship approached the words used in the statute and the CPR expecting to find the expiry of a limitation period fixed by reference to something which the claimant had to do, rather than something which someone else such as the court had to do. The time at which a claimant “brought” his claim form to the court with a request that it be issued was something he had to do; the time at which his request was complied with was not because it was done by the court and was something over which he had no real control. His Lordship did not agree that in that context the verb “to bring” had the same meaning as the verb “to start”. The 1980 Act could perfectly properly be construed so that in the context of the CPR a claim was “brought” when the claimant’s request for the issue of a claim form (together with the court fee) was delivered to the court office. His Lordship added that this was confined to the situation where there had been receipt by the court office of the claim form. Different considerations might apply if delivery were made to the wrong place or outside office hours.
ARDEN and LLOYD LJJ agreed.
|
