Supreme Court Ruling Could Lead To CPR Redraft

In a first for the Supreme Court, a litigant in person has asked the court to consider whether the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR") need amending in order to make them easier for individuals without legal representation to navigate.

The Claimant, a litigant in person at the start of the claim, lodged an appeal against his former solicitors in a claim for professional negligence. The Claimant had served his claim form and particulars of claim by email, without confirmation from his solicitors that this method of service would be accepted. After the limitation period had passed, the Defendants informed the claimant his method of service was invalid.

The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision and found there was no good reason to validate the service. The Claimant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing the CPR are complex and he is ill-equipped to understand the myriad of options and legal jargon.