Bali v 1-2 Couriers and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1413 concerned a personal injury claim following a road traffic accident on 2 December 2019. A variety of unexplained delays occurred throughout the case, including the claimant solicitors receiving the sealed claim form from the county court two days after the expiry of the four-month period for service of the claim form under CPR 7.5.
On appeal, the court considered the correct date at which the claim form was issued—was it the day it was sealed, or the day it was sent out by the court office?
Holding the former, Lady Justice Andrews said: ‘On the evidence, despite the fact that in practical terms the appellant's solicitors could not serve the claim form until it was in their possession, it was open to the judge to conclude that they had not taken all reasonable steps to comply with CPR 7.5 for the reasons that he gave.
‘In considering the reasonableness of the solicitors' conduct the judge was not constrained to look only at the period after the claim form came into their possession. Nor was he obliged to look only at the period between its issue and its receipt. He was entitled to take into account the entire background, including the fact that proceedings were brought on the very last day of the limitation period, and the lengthy delays which occurred between the lodging of the unsealed claim form and the issue of the sealed claim form, which he found were largely, though not exclusively, due to inactivity on the part of the solicitors.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7cbd2532_1)
