- Appellate court rectifies defective CPR 11 application but not defective service (Dr Sanjay Pitalia and Dr Shika Pitalia v NHS Commissioning Board)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved applications to rectify procedural errors: (1) the appellant had failed to serve the claim form in time, having served an unsealed version and subsequently failing to serve the correct sealed version of the claim form; and (2) the respondent had failed to specify in its acknowledgement of service and the relevant application seeking an order that the claim be struck out due to non-compliance with CPR 7.5 that it contested the court’s jurisdiction under CPR Part 11. In relation to the first error, the appellate court held that the District Judge was correct to refuse either to dispense with service or retrospectively to extend the time for service. However, in relation to the second error, the appellate court was willing to exercise its discretion to treat the respondent’s application to strike out the claim as including an application for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear it, taking into consideration that the declaration sought by the respondent was clear from the witness statement served in support of it and compliance with CPR 11(1) would have been achieved by adding minimal wording which was implicit in any event. Written by Anna Gilbert, counsel at Hausfeld & Co LLP and Simon Bishop, partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial