A legal campaign group is trying to revive a judicial review over a contract for personal protective equipment after the High Court refused to extend time for service of the claim form, which was served one day late.

The Good Law Project (GLP) sought to challenge the Department of Health and Social Care’s decision to award a £102.6m contract for face masks to Pharmaceutical Direct.

Its claim was filed on 27 April 2021 and, on the same day, GLP emailed an unsealed claim form to a ‘newproceedings’ email address supplied by the defendant. The High Court issued a sealed claim form the following day, which GLP’s solicitors, London firm Bindmans, emailed to three individuals from the Government Legal Department - one of who confirmed receipt - but not to the ‘newproceedings’ address.

On 6 May, the day after time for service of the claim form expired, GLD raised the issue of validity of service with Bindmans, as the claim form had not been sent to the dedicated service email address. A copy of the sealed claim form was sent to the ‘newproceedings’ email address later that day, making it effectively a day late.

GLP applied for an order that the steps it took to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant and Pharmaceuticals Direct constituted good service or, alternatively, for an extension of time to serve the claim form. However, Mrs Justice O’Farrell refused the application, finding that the failure to effect valid service was ‘serious and significant’.

The group today challenged her decision at the Court of Appeal, with Jason Coppel QC arguing that the judge wrongly failed to take into account ‘the wider public interest issues arising in the case’.

One ground of appeal – that the judge wrongly considered she had no jurisdiction to rectify GLP’s error under CPR 3.10 – has been dropped following last month’s Court of Appeal decision on the service of unsealed claim forms.

Ewan West, for the defendant, argued in written submissions that GLP ‘cannot appeal to the fact that it is a not-for-profit organisation trying to vindicate the public interest to persuade the court that a lower degree of compliance with the CPR is expected of it’.

The hearing before Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Carr continues.