Court’s administrative errors are no excuse for failing to serve a claim form in time

Last year’s decision in Arnold Holdings Limited v Keelys LLP [2025] EWCC 44 serves as a stark warning to those involved in litigation in the County Court that even if there are serious administrative errors on the Court’s part, they are not absolved of their obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The claim and first instance decision

Arnold Holdings instructed solicitors to pursue a professional negligence claim against Keelys for £572,500 in relation to legal advice provided by Keelys in a commercial property transaction in 2017. The Claim Form was lodged at Court on 20 June 2023 (one day before the limitation period expired), but the claim was not issued until 13 July 2023 which meant that, pursuant to CPR 7.5, the Claim Form had to be served by 13 November 2023.

When lodging the claim, Arnold Holdings indicated that they would serve the claim themselves, but despite this, the Court, in error, served the claim form directly on Keelys. Keelys agreed to treat the service by the Court as ineffective.

What then transpired is an unfortunate scenario involving the sorry state of administration within the County Court system that practitioners who often use County Courts will be all too familiar with. Despite repeated requests, the Court did not send Arnold Holdings a copy of the sealed Claim form and thus, on 17 October 2023, Arnold Holdings served Keelys with an unsealed copy of the Claim Form. Keelys indicated that it intended to challenge jurisdiction with a formal application being made on 14 November 2023.

On 15 November 2023 Arnold Holdings applied for a retrospective extension of time for service of the Claim Form which was refused at first instance on the basis that the District Judge considered that the Claimant had not taken all reasonable steps including applying for an extension of time before the deadline for service, seeking a stay, making an application to dispense with service or attempting to agree service with Keelys. The District Judge held that it was insufficient for Arnold Holdings to simply rely on the Court’s assurances that the Claim Form would be sent out.

Arnold Holdings appealed the decision which came before HHJ Saira Singh.

The decision on appeal

Whilst HHJ Singh noted the administrative failures of the Court, she also noted that Arnold Holdings was aware of those errors from July 2023 and, fatally, did not take any meaningful action in the claim (other than the attempted service of the unsealed claim form) since 4 October 2023 and as a result upheld the decision at first instance and dismissed the appeal.

In both the decision at first instance and at appeal, CPR 7.6(3)(b), was considered. This provision allows the Court the power to grant a retrospective extension of time if a claimant can show that they took “all reasonable steps” to serve the claim form within time. In considering this limb of the CPR, the Court found that the test within CPR 7.6(3)(b) is binary and that the Court has no discretion beyond this.

In light of the above, given that Arnold Holdings did not take any steps prior to 15 November 2023 to seek an extension of time, apply for a stay or for service to be dispensed with or engage with Keelys to agree a position on service, the Court could not agree that the strict test set out in CPR 7.6(3)(b) had been met.

What does this mean for those who regularly litigate in the County Court?

Any practitioner who deals with claims in the County Court will note that the current state of the system particularly in relation to administration and communication is woefully inadequate. One cannot even speak directly to the staff of the court in question, but rather are diverted to a regional call centre (after invariably being placed in a queue that can last for hours). Call centre staff, most often than not, are unable to deal with the queries and say that they will message the specific Court in question for an update. Callers are advised to email the Court. Responses to such emails can take weeks, with the situation compounded if the reply is inadequate and further communication is required. These failures are exacerbated by the time it can take for county court staff to draw up court orders. It is not unusual for practitioners to receive orders/directions from the Court where the deadline for compliance had already passed (and had passed by the date the order had been typed up).

Whilst the above are significant failures of the County Court system, the case of Arnold Holdings serves as a reminder that the system’s deficiencies are not an excuse for failing to meet the strict requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. Practitioners should always ensure that they are doing everything reasonably possible to resolve any unfortunate situation their clients find themselves in, even if the client and/or the solicitors were not at fault in the first place.