In Peterson & Anor v Howard De Walden Estates Ltd, the High Court held that a solicitor’s error in underpaying court fees by £24 did not amount to an error of procedure within the scope of the Civil Procedure Rules. Accordingly, it did not have the power to rectify the mistake, meaning that the claim could not proceed.
The claimant had sought to make an application in a landlord-tenant dispute within the four-month time limit they had to do so. Two days before the deadline of 25 March 2022, a representative of the claimants’ solicitors went to the Central London County Court but found that the counter had been moved due to renovation works. Court staff explained that payments could not be made yet at the new location but that papers could be lodged in the post box and would be treated as having been received that day.
The solicitors issued the claim form as well as a covering letter to give authorisation to deduct the £308 fee. While this had previously been the correct fee, the fee had increased to £332 in September 2021. The court, therefore, declined to issue the claim and sent the claim form back to the solicitors, with a letter making it clear that the claim could not be processed without the proper fee. However, by the time the solicitors received the letter, the statutory deadline for applying to the court had passed.
The Application Made by the Claimants’ Solicitors
The solicitors applied to the court for relief under CPR 3.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which gives the courts general power to rectify matters where there has been an error of procedure.
At first instance, Recorder Hansen held that this rule did not cover the situation in this case as there was no failure to comply with a rule or practice direction. This meant that the court was entitled to reject the case, given the failure of the solicitors to pay the correct fee. He did express some sympathy for the claimants, given that the mistake, in this case, was, in his view, ‘inadvertent and understandable’ but suggested that it was for the Court of Appeal to consider whether the current state of the law in this area was satisfactory.
Appealing the Underpayment of Court Fees
The claimants appealed, arguing that the Recorder’s approach was mistaken as he should have characterised the fee mistake as an error of procedure covered by CPR 3.10.
Mr Justice Eyre, however, rejected the claimants’ interpretation of the meaning and effect of CPR 3.10 and dismissed the appeal. He ruled that the error was not a failure to comply with the requirements set out in the CPR. Instead, the requirement to pay the correct court fee before a claim will be issued was a requirement set out by the Lord Chancellor. He added that the government had legislated to provide tenants with four months to bring claims and that it was not for the courts to say that the result of this was unsatisfactory.
Comment
While the decision appears harsh, the clear lesson from this case is not to leave it to the last minute to submit papers, so there is enough time to make necessary corrections in the event of an error.If you find yourself in a dispute and need legal assistance, our expert dispute resolution team can help establish whether you have a claim and guide you as to when and how to issue court proceedings. Get in touch with us today or email us.
Photo by Steve Johnson
