A failure to pay an issue fee to enable a claim form to be issued is not an error of procedure within the scope of CPR 3.10, which the court has power to remedy.
In Peterson and another v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2023] EWHC 929 (KB); [2023]PLSCS 78, the appellants were the successors-in-title to leasehold interest in a flat situated in Devonshire Street, London W1. The respondent was their landlord. The appellants sought to acquire a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
The requisite notice and counter-notices were served and on 25 November 2021 the parties had agreed the terms of a new lease. A new lease, however, was not ultimately granted. The claimants subsequently sought to apply to the court for an order under section 48. The deadline for making such an application was 25 March 2022.
On 23 March 2022 a representative from the claimants’ solicitors attended the counter a Central London County Court to issue the application. Due to renovations the counter had been moved causing some disruption to the normal running of the court counter. The court staff were unable to process court payments. The court staff explained that if the relevant papers were lodged in the court post box before 2:00pm they would be treated as being received that day. The claimant’s solicitors lodged the Part 8 claim form in the post box with a letter giving the court staff authority to deduct the court fee in sum of £308. The court fee had in fact increased to £332. As a result of the claimants’ solicitor not authorising the deduction of the appropriate fee, the court staff did not issue the claim form. The claim form was returned to the claimants’ solicitors on 24 March 2022 under cover of a letter informing them of the change in fees.
The court letter was received by the claimants’ solicitors on 30 March 2022. They applied for an order under CPR 3.10 claiming that the failure to pay the correct fee was an error of procedure within the scope of CPR 3.10 and therefore an error which the court had power to remedy. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to make the order sought as there had not been a failure to comply with “a rule or practice direction” and the error occurred before the commencement of proceedings. The claimants appealed, but the High Court upheld the decision of the court below.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
