The recent Court of Appeal decision of Bali v 1-2 Couriers Limited and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1413 provides a helpful reminder of when a claim form is ‘issued’ under the Civil Procedure Rules.
The appeal raised important points of principle and practice concerning: (i) the period of time within which a claim form must be served; and (ii) the correct approach to applications for an extension of time for service of a claim form when the claim has been brought within the prescribed limitation period, but the court office has delayed sending out the claim form and/or the claimant is unaware that the claim form has been issued.
The question at the heart of the appeal was: what is the date on which the claim form is issued for the purposes of CPR 7.2 (how to start proceedings) and 7.5 (service of a claim form)?
The claim was for damages for personal injuries sustained in a December 2019 road traffic accident. The claimant’s solicitors issued a claim form and a Help with Fees application on the final day of limitation in December 2022. However, due to prolonged inactivity from both the claimant’s solicitors and the court, the claim form was not processed or sent out until April 2024.
Although it was sealed on 13 December 2023, the claimant’s solicitors only received it in mid-April 2024 – two days after the deadline for service had expired. The claimant’s solicitors failed to monitor progress, did not urgently chase the court, and did not seek an extension of time before the service deadline had passed. They then incorrectly applied for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, and only later (in November 2024) corrected this to CPR 7.6 (extension of time for serving a claim form). Meanwhile, the defendant applied under CPR 11 for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction. The deputy district judge agreed and struck out the claim. The claimant was granted permission to appeal in February 2025.
On appeal, the claimant argued that the judge: (i) erred in finding that the date of the seal on the claim form was conclusive of the date of issue of the claim form; (ii) erred in his factual finding that the sealed claim form was not served in time; and (iii) alternatively, the judge was wrong to refuse the claimant’s applications for an extension of time for service and for relief from sanctions. The claimant contended that, since the CPR does not define the word ‘issue’, it should be taken to mean ‘sending out the claim form’ and, therefore, the claim was only ‘issued’ when it was posted in April 2024.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s arguments, noting that it ‘flies in the face of the clear language’ of CPR 7.2(2). The court explained that, although sealing and issuing may be conceptually distinct, they occur at the same moment: the claim form is issued when it is sealed, and the court’s stamp provides certainty. Therefore, proceedings commence when the claim form is sealed, not when it is posted. The Court of Appeal also found that the claimant’s reliance on the decision of Walton v Pickerings Solicitors [2023] EWCA Civ 602 was unhelpful because that case treats sealing and issue as inseparable acts, and there was nothing in the judgment that suggested that issue depended on despatch. The Court of Appeal also noted that tying the issue of the claim form to the date of posting created practical difficulties which would undermine the procedural certainty the CPR are designed to secure.
The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that the judge had wrongly treated the date stamp as determinative and erred in finding no evidence of backdating. It held that the processing of the fee and the assignment of a claim number demonstrated that all preconditions for issue were satisfied on 13 December 2023, making that the likely date of sealing and therefore of issue.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the claimant’s argument that the judge was wrong to criticise the solicitors before the claim form was sealed, as an unsealed form cannot be served. The court explained that, once the obstacles to issue were removed, it was foreseeable that the sealed claim form might arrive too late for timely service, a risk that increased each day. A reasonable solicitor would have checked whether the form had been issued, sent, and when it was likely to arrive. Although the claim form only reached the defendant’s solicitors after the CPR 7.5 deadline, this was relevant to the judge’s discretion but not determinative. The claimant’s solicitors should have acted more proactively.
The decision in Bali v 1–2 Couriers Ltd reaffirms the principle that a claim form is issued when it is sealed and not when it is despatched. The case is also a significant reminder to practitioners and claimants of their procedural obligations and responsibilities under the CPR. Administrative delays on the part of the court will not displace the obligation on practitioners and claimants to manage the progress of proceedings with diligence. Where proceedings are commenced close to the limitation period, the burden of ensuring effective service remains firmly with the claimant.
Therefore, practitioners should actively monitor the court process, verify whether the claim form has been sealed, and, where necessary, make timely applications under CPR 7.6 before the expiry of the service.
Masood Ahmed is associate professor of law at the University of Leicester. Dr Lal Akhter is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a lawyer, independent arbitrator and a mediator associated with Docket Live (Leicester) and Wiseman Solicitors (Bolton)
No comments yet