Barton v Wright Hassall LLP
A litigant in person must comply with the rules of court, and his lack of representation does not justify a lower standard of compliance.
Facts
Mr Barton, a litigant in person, sued his former solicitors for professional negligence. He tried to serve the claim form on the solicitors acting for the defendants by email, just before it was due to expire, but those solicitors had not said that they would accept service by email, as the rules required. As a result, the claim form was not validly served before it expired, and his claim became time barred. He applied for an order validating the service by email.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the service should not be validated, so Mr Barton's claim could not proceed. Lord Sumption said that the rules on service of a claim form are important, and that although a litigant in person's lack of representation may be relevant to case management decisions, it will not usually justify applying a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders. The rules are not particularly difficult to find or understand, and Mr Barton had taken the risk by leaving service until the last moment. Lady Hale and Lord Briggs dissented.
Related cases on civil justice and procedure
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
- Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
- Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 655, [2005] 1 WLR 3055
- Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926
- Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28, [2002] 1 WLR 2000
- Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
- Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926
- Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 303, [2002] 1 WLR 2434
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
