A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 11 octubre 2018
Atha & Co Solicitors v Zoe Liddle  EWHC 1751 (QB)
In recent years, the issue of issuance of court proceedings with payment of a low court fee based on a low statement of value has emerged as a possible route for Defendants to seek summary judgment based on issues of abuse of process and limitation principles. This is a developing jurisdiction, as a recent case shows.
Ms Liddle had issued professional negligence proceedings against Atha & Co whom, she alleged, had been negligent in acting for her in a personal injury claim.
Mrs Liddle's claim against Atha & Co was received by the court on 29 March 2016, shortly before expiry of the primary limitation period, but the proceedings were not issued until 7 April 2016, which was after the expiry of the primary limitation period.
The statement of value on the Claim Form said that the claim was valued at between £10,000 and £25,000. This was supported by a statement of truth signed by Ms Liddle's solicitor. The corresponding court fee of £1,250 was paid.
Atha & Co suspected that the value of the claim had been deliberately misstated to avoid paying a much higher court fee. They made a formal offer to settle the claim in the sum of £25,000 plus costs. This was rejected; it was clear that the claim was in fact valued in the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Atha & Co applied for strike out, on the basis that the undervaluing of the claim amounted to an abuse of the process of the court, and also sought summary judgment on limitation grounds on the basis that the 'appropriate fee' had not been paid at the time of issuance, such that the ordinary rule that a claim is "brought" when the claim form is delivered to the court office did not apply.
At first instance in the Middlesborough County Court, the parties had agreed that if there had been an abuse of process, the summary judgment element of the application would succeed since it would follow that the appropriate fee had not been paid. At first instance, the court held that the statement of value did not in this case amount to an abuse of process, so the applications for strike out and summary judgment failed. Atha & Co appealed to the High Court.
This decision reflects a change in direction of judicial thinking since the decision in Lewis v Ward Hadaway(2015), in which DAC Beachcroft acted for the defendant in successfully striking out multiple claims. There, the judge also held that claimants' conduct in deliberately understating the value of their claims was an abuse of process. Whilst, again, the abuse was not considered sufficiently serious to justify striking out a greater number of claims, the judge held in Lewis that the 'appropriate fee' had not been paid in time with the consequence that a number of claims had not been 'brought' before expiry of the relevant limitation periods, so summary judgment was granted. Subsequent decisions have expressed some misgivings over this "hard edged principle".
In this case, the judge acknowledged that "the proliferation of irreconcilable first instance decisions over the last few years is such that the time is now ripe for authoritative guidance from the Court of Appeal". We understand that an appeal to the Court of Appeal has indeed been made, and litigators will await the outcome with interest. Until then, we are left with some uncertainty over when a claim will be taken as having been "brought" for limitation purposes where the correct fee has not been paid. It seems likely that a more indulgent approach will be adopted in future where it can be shown that the delay is entirely unconnected with the abuse. The court of course retains the power to strike out any claim in the event that the abuse is "sufficiently egregious"; however, since that threshold was not reached even in the systematic abuse identified in Lewis, it appears clear that that power will be used sparingly.
Return to main page
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6900
+44 (0) 20 7894 6107
Sally Roff, Chris Baranowski
David Williams, David Johnson
Andrea Ward, David Williams
Sally Roff, Fiona Gill
Charlotte Le Maire, Ash Sharma
Marcus Campbell, Graham Briggs, Sarah Crowther
Richard Highley, Julian Bubb Humfryes
Francesca Muscutt, Annabel Walker
Suzanne Wharton, Naomi Park
Rhiannon Webster, Giles Hindle, Annabel Walker