In a recent Court of Appeal decision, a claim form filed by a litigant in person against her former solicitors was deemed improperly filed, leading to the case’s dismissal.
The High Court did not ‘receive’ a claim form from Jian Guo, who sought to sue Lancaster-based law firm Oglethorpe, Sturton & Gillibrand. Lady Justice Asplin outlined that the email attachment of a claim form, without a fee remission certificate, was insufficient and comparable to merely handing documents to court staff without proper filing.
Ms Guo’s attempts to file the claim in August 2021 were fraught with issues. Initially, she emailed the court seeking permission to file via email due to difficulties with electronic filing. Despite the court providing guidance on alternative filing methods, such as mailing or filing in person with the necessary fee or certificate, Guo continued with her electronic filing attempts.
The court records revealed that Guo’s second attempt was dismissed because the document was not recognised as a claim form. She subsequently paid the filing fee but only managed to submit another claim form later in the month, which faced further complications before being accepted on 1 September.
The case was later transferred to Preston County Court, where the law firm successfully argued for a summary judgment, citing that the claim was statute-barred due to the missed limitation cut-off on 21 August 2021. Permission to appeal was granted by Lord Justice Birss solely on the matter of filing the claim form.
Counsel for Guo contended that her initial claim form, though submitted through email, was ‘substantially the same’ as the later form and should be considered as filed. They further argued that the court should use its inherent jurisdiction for cases where the litigant did all that was required but faced court office delays.
However, Lady Justice Asplin, delivering the judgment, highlighted that the email option was valid only when accompanied by a fee remission certificate, which was absent in Guo’s filing. The court, therefore, concluded that Guo did not adhere to all required procedures before the limitation period ended, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
The decision underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed filing procedures, especially for litigants in person, to ensure claims are processed correctly and within the limitation period.
