R the Good Law Project v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWCA Civ 355 |
| Year | 2022 |
2022 Feb 1; March 24
Practice - Claim form - Service - Claimant failing to serve judicial review claim form within seven-day time limit - Claimant applying for permission for extension of time or alternative service - Applicable principles -
On an application to extend time for service of a claim for judicial review made under CPR Pt 54F1 it is CPR r 3.1(2)(a) rather than CPR r 7.6 which applies. However, the principles of CPR r 7.6 should be followed on the application. Thus, unless the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to comply with CPR r 54.7 but has been unable to do so, time for service should not be extended (post, paras 44–52, 80, 85, 95, 96).
CPR r 6.15 is not a generous provision for claimants where there are no obstacles to valid service of a claim form within time. The court will not necessarily exercise the power under CPR r 6.15 to permit service by an alternative method or at an alternative place even when the defendant, either itself or through its solicitors, is fully on notice within time and the only prejudice to the defendant would be the loss of an accrued limitation defence (post, paras 55–58, 84, 95, 97–100).
The availability of e-mail communications does not lessen the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of the CPR relating to service, although it may mean that even greater care when it comes to service formalities needs to be taken. Parties who fail, without good reason, to take reasonable steps to effect valid service, in circumstances where a relevant limitation period is about to expire, expose themselves to the very real risk of losing the right to bring their claim (post, paras 83, 95, 96).
The following cases are referred to in the judgments:
Abela v Baadarani
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP
Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd
Cain v Francis
Denton v TH White Ltd (Practice Note)
Elmes v Hygrade Food Products plc
G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [
Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard Inc
Jobsin Co UK plc (trading as Internet Recruitment Solutions) v Department of Health
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Practice Note)
Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd
R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Minister for the Cabinet Office
R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Prime Minister
R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Practice Note)
R (Law Society of England and Wales) v Legal Services Commission
Sodastream Ltd v Coates
Sprintroom Ltd, In re
Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [
Woodward v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd
The following additional cases were cited in argument or were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
Aktas v Adepta
Brown v Innovator One plc
Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [
Firman v Ellis [
Gee 7 Group Ltd v Personal Management Solutions Ltd
R v Comr for Local Administration, Ex p Croydon London Borough Council [
R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex p Greenpeace (No 2) [
R (AK) v Entry Clearance Office (Islamabad)
R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust
R (Unison) v NHS Wiltshire Primary Care Trust
Riverside Truck Rental Ltd v Lancashire County Council
Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat AS
SRCL Ltd v National Health Service Commissioning Board
APPEAL from O’Farrell J
By a claim form dated 27 April 2021, the claimant, the Good Law Project Ltd, sought judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care relating to the public procurement of a contract for the supply of personal protective equipment to Pharmaceuticals Direct Ltd (“PDL”). The claimant contended that the award of the contract was unlawful on the basis that it (i) was vitiated by apparent bias and/or involved taking into account irrelevant considerations, namely the identity and/or political connections of PDL’s representatives; and (ii) advantaged PDL in respect of the award of the contract, in breach of the obligations of transparency and equal treatment, and was the result of a procurement process which had unduly favoured PDL, in breach of regulations 18 and 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
By an application dated 19 May 2021, the claimant applied to validate service of the claim form under CPR r 6.15 and to extend time for service under CPR r 3.1(2)(a). The Secretary of State applied for an order setting aside the claim form for want of jurisdiction.
By a decision dated 29 June 2021 O’Farrell J [2021] EWHC 1782 (TCC) refused the claimant’s application and granted the Secretary of State’s application.
By an appellant’s notice dated 20 August 2021 and with permission of the Court of Appeal (Coulson LJ) granted 27 August 2021 the claimant appealed on the grounds of that: (1) the judge had erred in the exercise of her discretion in failing to authorise service of the judicial review claim form by an alternative method under CPR r 6.15; and (2) the judge had erred in the exercise of her discretion under CPR r 3.1(2)(a) in failing to extend time for service of the judicial review claim form.
By a respondent’s notice dated 14 September 2021 the Secretary of State sought to uphold the judgment on the grounds that: (1) the standard rule in CPR r 7.6 was applicable to the judicial review claim; (2), alternatively, the principles behind rule 7.6 should have been applied when applying CPR r 3.1(2)(a) rather than the relief from sanction principles because, as recognised in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] WLR 1119 the court treated the service of a claim form differently from completion of other procedural steps; (3) if the relief from sanctions principles did apply, the judge should additionally expressly have taken into account the rule 7.6 principles and the fact that she had refused the claimant’s application under CPR r 6.15 when considering all the circumstances in the relief from sanctions test.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Carr LJ, post, paras 2–3, 8–18.
Jason Coppel QC and Rupert Paines (instructed by
Ewan West and Jonathan Lewis (instructed by
PDL did not appear and was not represented.
The court took time for consideration.
24 March 2022. The following judgments were handed down.
CARR LJ
Introduction1 This appeal raises procedural issues of general importance arising out of defective and/or late service of a claim form for judicial review filed under Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“the CPR”). It requires consideration of the interplay in the context of a judicial review claim between the court’s specific powers: (i) to authorise service of a claim form at an alternative place under CPR r 6.15; (ii) to extend time for service of a claim form under CPR r 7.6; and the court’s general case management powers to extend time under CPR r 3.1(2)(a).
2 The appellant, Good Law Project Ltd (“Good Law”), is a not-for-profit organisation which campaigns to vindicate the public interest in lawful public decision-making. On 27 April 2021 it filed a claim for judicial review against the respondent, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (“the SSHSC”), challenging the lawfulness of the public procurement of a contract for the supply of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) to Pharmaceuticals Direct Ltd (“PDL”) in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was one of many public procurement challenges being pursued by Good Law in relation to contracts awarded by the government in the context of the pandemic and to come before the Technology and Construction Court (“the TCC”): see for example R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2022] EWCA Civ 21 and R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 46 (TCC).
3 Whilst a copy of the unsealed claim form reached the designated electronic service address for the Treasury Solicitor within time, and a copy of the sealed claim form reached the relevant case officer at the Government Legal Department (“the GLD”) within time, Good Law, by its solicitors, failed validly to serve the claim form on the designated electronic service address within the seven-day time limit prescribed under CPR r 54.7.
4 In a judgment...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Robert MacCallum v Secretary of State for Education
...[2004] 1 WLR 3206, at [35]; Atkas v Adepta [2011] QB 894, at [91]; R(Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] 1 WLR 2339, at [61]. However, the surrogacy principle is not universally applied in cases where it would be unjust to do so: see Pomiechowski ( abo......
-
The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Ltd
...area including the judgments in (and the judgments cited in) Good Law Project Limited v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355 (although that was a specialist Part 8 Claim and so only considered the relevant principles by analogy), Ideal Shopping Direct Limited v......
-
Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad and Others
...CA Pitalia v NHS England [2023] EWCA Civ 657; [2023] 1 WLR 3584; [2024] 3 All ER 66, CA R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Practice Note) [2022] EWCA Civ 355; [2022] 1 WLR 2339; [2023] 1 All ER 821, CA Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA v Director of the......
-
Xenfin Fund 1 Trading Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v GFG Ltd
...Hassall LLP [2020] UKSC 12, [2020] 1 WLR 1119 at [22], [23]; R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355, [2022] 1 WLR 2339 at [41], [83]. He also relied on White v Weston [1968] 2 QB 647 at 661–662 for the proposition that a prospective defe......