The High Court has ruled in favour of a Defendant's application to strike out a claim Free Leisure Ltd v Pedil and Company Ltd and another [2023], deciding that an insufficiently detailed Claim Form cannot be particularised through a separate letter, and that particularisation must happen within the limitation period given under the Limitation Act 1980.
In December 2015, the Claimant (which runs a circus themed nightclub in Soho called Cirque Le Soir) employed the First Defendant, Peidl and Company Ltd, to install Christmas decorations at their commercial premises. A staple gun was used for the task, and allegedly a staple damaged a wire connecting a set of festive lights to their power source. This resulted in a fire. Although the First Defendant company was dissolved in October 2021, the claim was also brought against the First Defendant's insurers, QBE UK Limited (the Second Defendant).
Following the fire, the Claimant's solicitors sent a letter to the First Defendant in March 2016, putting them on notice of a possible claim. However, they did not issue their claim until November 2021, around one month before the six-year limitation period in the Limitation Act 1980, expired. They served the Claim Form four months later in March 2022, along with a Letter of Claim. The details on the Claim Form were sparse, and only stated that the claim "arose out of a breach of contract and/or negligence" although the Letter of Claim served at the same time provided details of the nature of the claim and heads of loss. Further Particulars of Claim were served by the Claimant in May 2022 following an agreed extension.
The Second Defendant applied for the claim to be struck out and for summary judgment as, amongst other things, the Claim Form did not contain a concise notice of the claim or specify the remedy sought, as required by CPR 16.2(1). The Second Defendant argued that issuing a bare claim form, to stop the limitation period running amounted to an abuse of process and, in any event, was insufficient to stop time running. They said that the Claim Form should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
The Claimant argued, inter alia, that although the Claim Form itself was defective, the Claimant had provided the Defendants with a factual basis for their claim in their letter in March 2016 and in other correspondence, including the Letter of Claim which was served with the Claim Form in March 2022. They said that the Claim Form needed to be looked at in light of the other documents which they claimed made up the 'Statement of Case' as a whole.
Deputy Judge Charles Hollander KC disagreed with the Claimant, finding that although a Claim Form can be concise, a minimum amount of information must be included. He stated that a Letter of Claim cannot be used to interpret or construe the Claim form. In any event, the Letter of Claim was created after the limitation had expired (when the Claim Form was served). Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim cannot be relied upon to explain the Claim Form as they were not served at the same time. It could not be said that the later Particulars of Claim pleaded the same causes of action as the Claim Form as the Claim form provided no effective cause of action.
The Claim was struck out.
