Under paragraph 5.1 of practice direction 7A of the Civil Procedure Rules: ‘Proceedings have started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant, but where the claim form as issued was received in the court office on a date earlier than the date on which it was issued by the court, the claim is ‘brought’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and any other relevant statute on that earlier date.’

Where the form N1 contains no statement of case, there surely can be no requirement for a signed statement of truth on the reverse of the N1.

The prescribed form allows for either particulars of claim to be endorsed in the relevant box or ‘to follow’.

Our recently lodged claim was duly sent off to Haywards Heath Business Centre to issue. It was returned on the last day of the limitation period, unissued, because ‘the statement of truth needs to be signed’.

Had we not received it on that day and despatched a trainee back to court with the forms N1 duly (but unnecessarily) signed, we would have been out of time and faced an argument with the defendant and/or Ministry of Justice whether the claim form as issued was the one received on the earlier date.

I sought an explanation from Haywards Heath Business Centre, which responded that practice direction 22.1(1) of the CPR requires a ‘statement of case’ to be verified by a statement of truth.

It seems neither Haywards Heath Business Centre nor our local county court are aware of the distinction between a statement of case and a form N1 omitting it.

I would be interested in the views of other practitioners on this point.

Myles Hickey, Dowse & Co, London E8