Howard Beckett v Sharon Graham & Anor

This is an appeal from the orders of Senior Master Cook of 6 May and 17 October 2025. The 6 May 2025 order directed that the amended claim form was validly served on the Defendants in accordance with CPR 7.5(1) within four months of the date of issue. The 17 October 2025 order addressed consequential matters and no free-standing appeal arises from that order. To avoid confusion, I will refer to the parties as they were known below.

The central issue raised by this appeal is whether the Senior Master was wrong to find there was no requirement for the Claimant to file a claim form that had been amended without permission of the Court pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) by making additions to the text of the sealed claim form, before it could be validly served on the Defendants. The issue arises in the context of PD 51O – The Electronic Working Pilot Scheme, which was applicable at the material time, although neither party suggests the position under the rules would be different if the claim was not one where Electronic Working applied.

By application notice dated 22 October 2024, the Claimant sought an order that the Court proceedings were validly served on the Defendants on 2 October 2024. By application notice dated 29 October 2024, the Defendants sought an order under CPR 11 declaring that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the claim brought against either Defendant and setting aside the amended claim form which the Claimant had purportedly served. The Defendants contended that the Claimant had failed to effect valid service of the amended claim form within the prescribed four-month window and that the time for doing so had now expired.

The chronology of events is set out in more detail from para 9 below. By way of brief summary at this stage, the Claimant’s solicitors filed the original claim form electronically in the Liverpool District Registry on 5 June 2024 and the following day the Court emailed a PDF of the sealed claim form to the Claimant’s solicitors, bearing a Court seal date of 5 June 2024. Accordingly, the Claimant had until 5 October 2024 to take a step required for service of the claim form pursuant to CPR 7.5(1). On 2 October 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors amended the sealed claim form (indicating in manuscript that it was amended pursuant to CPR 17.1(1)) and then sent the amended claim form to the Defendants’ solicitors by first-class post. If the service was valid, then the amended claim form was served in time, as the deemed date of service under the CPR was 4 October 2024.

The rival applications were heard by the Senior Master on 25 March 2025. In his reserved judgment handed down on 6 May 2025, he concluded that the amended claim form had been validly served as there was nothing in the CPR that required the claimant to re-file the amended version of the claim form with the Court or have it re-sealed before serving it on the Defendants. Permission to appeal was granted by Hill J on 13 November 2025.

For the purposes of this appeal, the Defendants did not pursue their earlier contentions that: (i) the amended claim form had to be re-sealed by the Court and the re-sealed document served, for valid service to be effected; and (ii) the Claimant had failed to comply with CPR 6.17(2) in the way that the amended claim form was filed with the Certificate of Service (“CoS”). Additionally, the Claimant no longer relied upon the alternative contentions that were raised in his application notice and rejected by the Senior Master, namely that if valid service had not been effected within the prescribed four month period, the Court should permit an alternative means of service pursuant to CPR 6.15, dispense with the requirements of service pursuant to CPR 6.16 or extend time for him to serve a re-sealed amended claim form under CPR 7.6(3).

Accordingly, the arguments before me were solely focused on the short but important question of whether the Claimant was required to file the amended claim form with the Court pre-service and have it accepted, in order to effect valid service on the Defendants. The parties were agreed that there was no explicit requirement to do so in the CPR and that there was no earlier appellate authority that directly addressed this issue.

The Claimant relied upon witness statements dated 22 October 2024 and 4 March 2025 made by Anthony John McKeever, a Director and Solicitor of Havard Law Solicitors, who represent the Claimant in this matter. The Defendants relied upon witness statements dated 29 October and 22 November 2024 made by Tom David Double, partner at Brett Wilson LLP, the Defendants’ solicitors.

The Claimant was employed by the Second Defendant as Director for Legal & Affiliate Services, until his resignation in January 2023. The First Defendant is and was at the relevant time the General Secretary of the Second Defendant, a British and Irish trade union with over 1.2 million members in construction, manufacturing, transport and other sectors.

On 17 and 24 May 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors sent letters of claim to those representing the Defendants.

On 5 June 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors filed a claim form in the Liverpool District Registry using Electronic Working. At that stage, the claim was described as one in libel in respect of words relating to the Claimant that were published by the Defendants at the Second Defendant’s Executive Council meeting on 6 June 2023.

On 6 June 2024, the Court informed the Claimant’s solicitors that the claim had now been issued and provided a PDF of the sealed claim form bearing a Court seal date of 5 June 2024. As I noted in the Introduction, the claim form was thus valid for service until 5 October 2024.

On 2 October 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors amended the claim form in manuscript, so it was now headed “Amended Claim Form” and stated at the top of the first page, “AMENDED CLAIM FORM UNDER CPR 17.1(1) DATED 2 OCTOBER 2024”. The previous “Brief details of claim” referring to the claim in libel were struck through and an additional page was inserted indicating that the Claimant’s claim was for damages for misuse of private information in respect of information that was said to have been leaked / disclosed to the Press by the Defendants, or their agents or servants, on 3 August 2022 regarding the Claimant’s suspension from his employment.

The Defendants’ solicitors had earlier agreed to accept service. On 2 October 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors sent the amended claim form, the particulars of claim and the response packs to the Defendants’ solicitors by first-class post. The documents were received on 3 October 2024 and if valid service had been effected, the deemed date of service under the CPR was 4 October 2024.

On 4 October 2024 at 10:10 hours, the Claimant’s solicitors completed and filed a CoS (Form N215), indicating the Defendants had been served with the amended claim form, particulars of claim and response pack documents by sending the documents by first class post to their solicitors; and the date of service was given as 4 October 2024. The listed documents including the amended claim form were uploaded to the electronic filing system. At 13:06 hours the same day, the Court emailed to confirm the filings had been accepted by the clerk at 13:04 hours.

On 11 October 2024, the Defendants’ solicitors wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors disputing that valid service had taken place as, amongst other reasons, the amended claim form had not been filed with the Court before the purported service had taken place.

On 14 October 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Court asking for the amended claim form to be “re-sealed”. Mr McKeever explained in his witness evidence that this was done simply to try and find a practical way of resolving the dispute over service that had arisen. He said that his earlier telephone calls with Court staff at Liverpool District Registry indicated this was not a step that was usually undertaken by the Court. On 16 October 2024, the Court emailed the Claimant’s solicitors saying that a Judge had directed an unsealed claim form (containing the contents of the amended claim form) should be filed, so it could be sealed with the date of receipt. This document was supplied by the Claimant’s solicitors on 21 October 2024 but it was not sealed by the Court and neither party placed reliance upon this aspect in their submissions.

On 16 October 2024, acknowledgements of service were filed on behalf of both Defendants indicating their intention to contest jurisdiction.

I have already summarised the applications made by the parties on 22 and 29 October 2024. As will be apparent from my Introduction, the Claimant’s application succeeded and the Defendants’ application was dismissed by the Senior Master. Consequential matters were adjourned to a future hearing, if they could not be agreed and the time for applying for permission to appeal was extended to 21 days after the Senior Master had refused any such application. I summarise the Senior Master’s judgment from para 57 below.

A subsequent hearing to address consequential matters took place on 15 October 2025 (having been postponed from an original listing of 9 July 2025). By his order sealed on 17 October 2025, the Senior Master refused the Defendants’ application for permission to appeal. He ordered the Defendants, on a joint and several basis, to pay 90% of the Claimant’s costs in respect of the application notices dated 22 and 29 October 2024 and the 25 March 2025 hearing and the subsequent hearing. The costs were summarily assessed in the sum of £90,528.30. The Senior Master’s order also set out a timetable for the Defendants to file further acknowledgements of service and defences. He provided that the timescale would be extended until after determination of the appeal if permission to appeal was granted.

The Appellants’ Notice relies upon two grounds of appeal, namely that the Senior Master was wrong to find that:

By a Respondent’s Notice filed on 27 November 2025, the Claimant indicated that he wished the Court to uphold the Senior Master’s order on the following different or additional grounds:

As I explain in more detail below, Mr Hudson KC qualified the broad terms of the first additional reason in accepting that the Senior Master had been correct to identify CPR 6.17(2) as requiring an amended claim form to be filed with the CoS if it had not already been filed with the Court. He also accepted that the third additional reason only arose if I were to find for the Defendants on the central question of whether there was a requirement to file the amended claim form before it was served on the Defendants. He agreed that the fourth additional reason was simply a restatement of the Claimant’s overall position.

CPR 7.2 provides:

CPR 2.6 provides:

The word “seal” is defined in the CPR glossary as “a mark which the court puts on a document to indicate that the document has been issued by the court”.

In light of the provisions in CPR 7.2 and 2.6, proceedings are not “started” until the Court issues the claim form; until the claim form is marked with the seal, the document has not been issued; and the purpose of adding the seal date is to indicate when the proceedings have been issued: Walton v Pickerings Solicitors and anor. [2023] EWCA Civ 602, [2023] 1 WLR 3545 (“Walton”) per Nugee LJ at paras 25 and 28. Nugee LJ went on to identify that the primary function of the date of issue was to mark the beginning of the period (of four or six months, as the case may be) for service of the claim form (para 32). The Court of Appeal held that on a true construction of CPR 2.6 and 7.2, there was no power in the Court to seal a claim form with a date other than the date on which the claim form is in fact sealed (para 39).

The power to amend a statement of case (including a claim form) before service without the need to seek the permission of the Court is contained in CPR 17.1, as follows:

A party who is served with a statement of case that has been amended without permission, may ask the Court to disallow the amendment. CPR 17.2 provides:

If a statement of case has already been served, a party may amend it only with the written consent of all the other parties or with the permission of the Court: CPR 17.2(a) and (b).

The notes at para 17.1.2 of the 2024 edition of the White Book (the edition that was current in October 2024 when the relevant events in this case took place) on “Practice on amendment” say that a statement of case amended without permission “must be endorsed as follows ‘Amended [Particulars of Claim or as may be] under CPR [17.1(1) or (2)(a)] dated...’ and should be filed as well as served” (underlining added). The Defendants rely upon the underlined wording in this passage as supporting their central contention. Para 17.1.2 of the White Book 2025 contains an expanded note on this topic. The text says that “A sealed claim form that is amended before service should be re-filed with the court that, depending upon the system in operation, will record or mark how the original sealed claim form has been amended. The re-sealed amended claim form ought to be served within the period prescribed by r.7.5”. No specific authority is cited for this proposition. The text then makes reference to Cant v Hertz Corp [2015] EWHC 2617 (Ch) (“Cant”) and to Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard Inc [2022] EWCA Civ 14 (“Ideal Shopping”) (discussed at paras 48-56 below) and to the Senior Master’s decision in the present case.

Para 1 of the PD to Part 17 is headed “Applications to amend when the permission of the court is required”. It says as follows:

Mr Hudson points out that there is no equivalent requirement to that contained in PD 17 para 1.3, requiring the filing of an amended statement of case in circumstances where the Court’s permission for the amendment is not required.

PD 17 para 2.1 sets out how the amended statement of case should be endorsed in instances where the Court’s permission to amend is required and in instances where the Court’s permission is not required. The opening words of para 2.1 state, “The amended statement of case and the court copy of it should be endorsed as follows...” (underlining added). Mr Wolanski KC suggests the underlined wording indicates that the rules do envisage the amended statement of case being filed with the Court, whether or not permission to amend is required.

The time for service of the claim form is addressed in CPR 7.5. Where the claim form is served in the jurisdiction, the claimant must complete the step required in the table that follows in relation to their chosen method of service before 12.00 midnight on the calendar day four months after the date of issue of the claim form. In relation to service by first class post, the required step is posting the claim form.

The requirement to file a CoS in respect of service of the claim form is addressed at CPR 6.17(2), which provides:

The CoS must be in Form N215, which is a prescribed form approved by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. As is apparent from the terms of CPR 6.17(2)(a), there is no obligation on a claimant to file a CoS where all defendants have filed acknowledgements of service within the prescribed period. CPR 10.3(1) states that, as a general rule, the period for filing an acknowledgement of service is: (a) where the defendant is served with a claim form that states the particulars of claim are to follow, 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; and (b) in any other case, 14 days after service of the claim form.

The terms of PD 6A para 7.1 are relied upon by Mr Wolanski. It provides:

PD 51O was made under CPR 5.5, which provides:

Para 1.2 of PD 51O stated that Electronic Working “works within and is subject to all statutory provisions and rules together with all procedural rules and practice directions applicable to the proceedings concerned”, subject to any exclusion within PD 51O. (The listed exclusions are not relevant for present purposes.) Para 2.1 stated that Electronic Working enables parties to issue proceedings and file documents online 24 hours a day every day all year round. Para 2.2H indicated that from 18 October 2021, a party who is legally represented must use Electronic Working to start and/or continue any relevant claims or applications in the King’s Bench Division District Registries. Relevant claims for these purposes included CPR Part 7 claims. Para 2.3 explained that to file a document using Electronic Working, a party must access the Electronic Working website address, register for an account or log into an existing account, enter the case details, upload the appropriate document and pay the appropriate fee. Proceedings issued in the King’s Bench District Registries (amongst other jurisdictions) would be stored by the Court as an electronic case file known as “the Electronic Working Case File”.

PD 51O, para 5 was headed “General rules regarding issue and filing” and included the following:

Submission of any document using Electronic Working will generate an automated notification acknowledging that the document has been submitted and is being reviewed by the Court prior to being accepted (the “Acceptance”).

The court may make an order to remedy an error of procedure made while using Electronic Working, in accordance with CPR 3.10(b). When the court makes such an order, a document filing will not fail Acceptance because of the error of procedure made.

Court staff may refuse to include a submitted document in its corresponding Electronic Working Case File if the document has been scanned or saved upside down or is otherwise illegible or incomplete.

Where Court staff has not included a submitted document on its corresponding Electronic Case Working File for one of the reasons listed in paragraph 5.3(3), the submission will not have failed Acceptance, but the party having made the submission will have to upload the document again in accordance with Court staff instructions in order for the document to be properly included on the corresponding Electronic Working Case File.

Where payment of a court fee is required to accompany the filing of a document, the date and time of filing on Electronic Working will be deemed to be the date and time at which payment of the Court fee is made using Electronic Working.

The date and time of payment will also be the date and time of issue for all claim forms and other originating processes submitted using Electronic Working.

For all other document filings, the date and time of filing will be the submission date and time for the purposes of any direction under the appropriate rules or for the purposes of complying with an order of the Court, unless expressly provided otherwise by the Court.

Once a document filing is accepted, a notification will appear on the Electronic Working online account registered to the filing party to confirm that the document has been accepted and to confirm the date and time of issue or the date and time of filing in accordance with paragraphs 5.4(1) to 5.4(3).

The date and time of issue or the date and time of filing of a document submitted using Electronic Working will not be delayed by Acceptance, unless the submission fails Acceptance because the filing error is more serious than an error of procedure, or the Court orders that it has failed Acceptance for some other reason.

If the submission fails Acceptance, notice of the reasons for failure will be given to the party on that party’s Electronic Working online account and if the submission was of a claim form, appeal notice, or other document requiring to be issued, it will be deemed not to have been issued.”

PD 51O para 7 addressed electronic sealing. It provided that where the Court issued a claim form or other originating application which had been submitted using Electronic Working and accepted by the Court, the Court would electronically seal this document “with the date on which the relevant Court fee was paid and this shall be the issue date as per the provisions of paragraph 5.4”. Para 7.2 indicated that the electronic seal may differ in appearance to the seal used on paper.

PD 51O para 8 addressed “Service” and included the following:

Electronic filing is now addressed in PD 5C- “CE-File electronic filing and case management system”. Para 1.1 states that it sets out the procedure for the use of CE-File (the electronic filing and case management system used in the Courts that are identified in para 1.3, which includes the District Registries of the King’s Bench Division). Para 1.6 provides that use of CE-File is subject to the CPR and the other practice directions supplementing the rules (subject to any exclusion or revision within PD5C). In the Courts to which it is to apply, CE-File must be used by a legally represented party to start or continue proceedings: para 2.1.

Many of the provisions of PD 5C reflect the earlier PD 51O and it is unnecessary for me to set these out in detail. Mr Wolanski placed particular reliance on the provisions regarding acceptance and rejection of documents filed by CE-File. Para 1.2(h) states that “reject” means a refusal by Court officers to process onto CE-File a document that has been submitted on CE-File and “rejection” has the equivalent meaning. It adds that a document which has been rejected will not be saved or appear on CE-File. Para 1.2(i) provides that “accept” means “the administrative processing by court officers of a document that has been submitted” and “acceptance” has the equivalent meaning. A document which has been accepted will be saved to and appear on CE-File.

Para 3.4(2) provides that Court officers will either accept or reject the submission of a document using CE-File; and may contact the parties prior to acceptance to correct minor errors on the submission. Para 3.4(3) states that Court officers may reject a submission in the circumstances specified at (a) – (j). These circumstances include where: (a) the correct fee has not been paid; (b) the document is corrupted so that it cannot be opened or read; (c) the document is not in pdf, word or excel format, unless otherwise directed under para 3.1(1)(b); (d) the document has been submitted on the wrong case file; (e) pages of a court form are missing; (f) in a Part 7 or Part 8 claim form or Part 23 pre-issue application, one or more of the parties is not named or identified (unless a rule, practice direction or Court order allows for this) or no address is identified for a party and no application for alternative service is filed; and (g) a civil restraint order (“CRO”) has been made against the submitting party and that party has not provided an order for permission to issue where the CRO provides that such permission is required. If a submission is rejected, notice of the rejection is given to the party on CE-File and if the document was a claim form or other document requiring to be issued, it will not have been issued: para 3.4(4).

In Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth [2014] 1 WLR 1 (“Hills Contractors”), which was decided prior to the introduction of Electronic Working, Ramsey J held that the effect of CPR 7.2(1) and 2.6(1) (paras 24 - 25 above) was that, save for certain permitted exceptions, a photocopy of a sealed claim form was not a “claim form” for the purposes of the Rules, as it bore only a photocopy of the Court’s seal and not the original seal.

The circumstances in Cant bear some factual similarities to the present case and so I refer to it for completeness, as did the Senior Master. However, Mr Wolanski did not rely upon the reasoning of the Deputy High Court Judge in that case, which he described as “not the most compelling”.

In brief, the claim form in Cant was issued and sealed on 29 January 2015. Accordingly, the four-month period for taking a step required for service on the second defendant (the only defendant within the jurisdiction) expired on 29 May 2015. The claim form and the particulars of claim were sent to the second defendant on 28 May 2015 by first class post. Before they were sent, the sealed claim form was amended in manuscript, deleting the seventh and eight defendants. The second defendant argued that valid service had not occurred as the claim form sent on 28 May 2015 had not been re-sealed by the Court. The Court subsequently issued a re-sealed claim form. Counsel for Mr Cant accepted that the amended claim form had to be filed with the Court but she argued that there was no requirement for a re-sealed version of the amended claim form to be served on a defendant, it being sufficient that the defendant was served with the original sealed claim form that had been amended in manuscript (para 13).

HHJ Hacon noted that there appeared to be no rule in the CPR requiring a claimant who properly amended their claim form without permission to serve a re-sealed version of the claim form on the defendant as opposed to the version that had been sealed once and amended afterwards (para 14). However, he went on to observe that it was “at least arguable”, in light of Hills Contractors, that the claim form had not been validly served as the version of the document actually served on the second defendant had not (at that stage) been re-sealed by the Court (para 14). The Judge did not reach a decision on this point as he held that, in any event, the claimant was entitled to relief from sanctions pursuant to CPR 3.9 (paras 15 and 18-19).

In his judgment in the present case, the Senior Master expressed surprise that the claimant’s solicitors had received a re-sealed claim form from the Court in Cant, as this did not accord with his understanding of established practice (para 62). He noted the current King’s Bench Division practice was that the Court would not seal a claim form that had been amended pursuant to CPR 17.1(1), rather it would simply be filed on the Court file, as it would already bear the Court seal. Only if a claim form were amended under CPR 17.1(1) by creating a new document that did not bear the Court seal would the Court seal this claim form and in these circumstances, the seal would bear a new date and the original date of issue of the claim would be recorded on the amended claim form (para 60). Accordingly, the same document would be served, whether it was served before or after filing (para 60).

The Senior Master explained he had difficulty with HHJ Hacon’s comment that it was “at least arguable” that the requirements of Hills Contractors had not been met by service of the original sealed claim form with manuscript amendments. He pointed out, as HHJ Hacon had already accepted, that there was no requirement in the CPR for a claimant who properly amended his claim form without permission to serve on the defendant a re-sealed version of the claim form, as opposed to the version which had been sealed and amended afterwards (para 63). As I indicated at para 6 above, the Defendants no longer pursue the argument that the amended claim form in this case had to be re-sealed before it was served.

Ideal Shopping was concerned with the purported service of an unsealed claim form. Upholding Morgan J’s decision at [2020] EWHC 3399 (Ch), the Court of Appeal held that both as a general rule and under Electronic Working a claim form had to be sealed before it could be validly served, irrespective of whether it was amended or unamended, as an unsealed claim form was not a “claim form” within the CPR (paras 137 – 144).

In summary, the factual circumstances in Ideal Shopping were as follows. The parties agreed extensions of time for service of the claim form until 17 July 2020. The claimants’ solicitors had earlier sent copies of issued claim forms to the defendants’ solicitors for information, but not by way of service. Following a judgment of the Supreme Court, the claimants’ solicitors wanted to make various amendments to the claim forms that had been sealed by the Court and, accordingly, new claim forms were prepared which were not identical to the sealed claim forms. These amended claim forms were filed electronically on 17 July 2020, but when these amended claim forms had not been issued by 15:00 hours that day, the claimants’ solicitors purported to serve the unsealed amended claim forms, along with the particulars of claim and the response packs, indicating in a covering letter that the sealed copies would be sent as soon as possible. Sealed amended claim forms were issued by the Court in due course, but they were not served before the expiry of the agreed extended deadline. The defendants’ solicitors argued that the sending of the unsealed claim forms did not constitute good service.

After reviewing the applicable CPR provisions, Hills Contractors and Cant, Morgan J held that the documents served by the claimants’ solicitors on 17 July 2020 were not claim forms as they had not been sealed (paras 55 – 58). During the course of his analysis, Morgan J distinguished the circumstances before him from those arising in the present case, where the amendment is made to the original sealed claim form prior to service. However, whilst he flagged the issue that could arise in such a case, Morgan J did not need to resolve that point and he did not express a view one way or the other, simply observing:

Giving the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, Sir Julian Flaux C summarised this part of Morgan J’s judgment without expressing a view on this point (para 33). From para 127, Sir Julian Flaux addressed the claimants’ submission that there was a lacuna in the Electronic Working Pilot because of the time lag between the filing of a claim and its Acceptance and sealing which, it was said, led to injustice and uncertainty. Whilst acknowledging that Acceptance may not take place on the same day as filing, Sir Julian Flaux observed that there were at least five things the claimants and their solicitors could and should have done which would have avoided the problem which they encountered. First, they should have filed the amended claim forms earlier than the last day of the period for service (paras 129 – 131). Second, if that was not possible, they could have sought a further extension of time from the defendants (para 132). Third, if agreement to an extension was not forthcoming, the claimants’ solicitors could have served the original claim forms and then served the amended claim forms once they had been sealed (para 133). Fourth, when the amended claim forms were filed electronically, the claimants’ solicitors could have asked the Court staff to expedite their Acceptance (para 134). Fifth, if all else failed, the claimants’ solicitors could have issued an application for an extension of time under CPR 7.6(2) before the expiry of the deadline for service (para 135).

The Senior Master discussed the decisions in Hills Contractors, Cant and Ideal Shopping, which I have already referred to. He prefaced his analysis with the observation that it was important to note that other than Ideal Shopping, the cases had been decided against the background of the practice relating to paper claim forms and wet seals. The decision in Hills Contractors that sending a photocopy of a wet sealed original claim form was not good service, would be hard to understand in the current world of Electronic Working (para 35). The Senior Master said that when he began sitting as a King’s Bench Master, a claim form would be issued with a red ink court seal bearing a date. A file copy would be kept and service copies sent to the claimant’s solicitor. If it was necessary to amend a claim form, the amendments would be button sealed with a smaller red seal on both the Court and the service copies (para 36). I have already referred to the Senior Master’s description of the current Court practice (para 51 above).

The Senior Master said it was important to keep the overriding objective well in mind; the CPR was a procedural code which aimed to enable the Court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost and the CPR applied equally to all litigants, represented or not. He considered that in these circumstances “the relevant rules for taking important steps in the litigation process should be clearly expressed and understandable to all” (para 55). He continued:

After discussing the caselaw, the Senior Master set out his conclusions that: (i) there was no obligation on a claimant who had amended their claim form post-issue under CPR 17.1(1) by endorsing the sealed version, to serve a re-sealed version of that amended claim form; and (ii) the only obligation to file a claim form that had been amended in these circumstances was imposed by CPR 6.17(2) in terms of the documents to be filed with the CoS. He said:

The Senior Master then turned to the “unhappy consequences” which Mr Wolanski had identified as resulting if a claim form amended without permission did not have to be filed with the Court (having earlier summarised this submission at para 29 of his judgment). First, amending a claim form to add a new cause of action may result in an additional fee being payable, but if the amended claim form were not filed, the fee would not be paid. Second, it would be possible for the acknowledgment of service to be filed before the amended claim form was filed and in these circumstances, any request for inspection of the Court file pursuant to CPR 5.4C(3)(a) would result in the unamended claim form being provided. Third, it would be possible for a claimant to amend a claim by removing a valid cause of action and replacing it with incoherence, such as a nonsense poem by Edward Lear. If the amended claim form were served, it would falsely convey the authority of the Court in relation to that amendment. Fourth, it would be possible for a claimant to add a defendant to a claim form who appeared to be out of the jurisdiction where the relevant notice under CPR 6.33 had not been provided. (In such circumstances, the claim form should be endorsed with the words “not for service out of the jurisdiction” (in accordance with para 6.11 of the King’s Bench Guide)).

The Senior Master accepted that for a limited period of not more than 21 days the court file may not contain the claim form as amended; this was a consequence of the application of the CPR to Electronic Working (para 68). He considered that the other potential consequences highlighted by Mr Wolanski were met by existing provisions in the CPR. If an impermissible amendment was made by a claimant, the defendant could apply for it to be disallowed pursuant to CPR 17.2. Similarly, if the amended claim form was served out of the jurisdiction in impermissible circumstances, the defendant could challenge jurisdiction under CPR 11. Lastly, if an amendment required a further fee to be paid, PD 51O para 5.4(1) provided for payment to be made when the document was filed (para 69).

The Senior Master went on to indicate that if he were wrong in his conclusion that the amended claim form had been validly served in this case, he accepted Mr Wolanski’s submission that the Supreme Court’s decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 confirmed that CPR 3.9 does not give the Court power to grant relief to a claimant who has failed to comply with the rules governing service of a claim form (para 70). Furthermore, a series of cases, including Ideal Shopping at para 146, had established that the provisions of CPR 6.15(2), 6.16 and 7.6(3) could not be circumvented by an application under CPR 3.10 (para 71). As I indicated earlier, the claimant no longer relies upon these alternative contentions.

The Senior Master noted if he had held that service of the claim form had to be set aside, the decision would be of little consequence as a new claim form could still be issued as the applicable limitation period had not expired (para 72). He then concluded his judgment by urging the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to give attention to the issue raised in this case, saying:

I have already referred to the new PD 5C. It does not specifically address the issue highlighted by the Senior Master.

Mr Wolanski confirmed his core submissions were that where a sealed claim form was subsequently amended without permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) in an Electronic Working case, the amended claim form had to be filed and accepted by the Court before service, in order for valid service of the amended claim form to take place; and that the Senior Master was wrong to find that CPR 6.17(2) (regarding the filing of the CoS) was the only filing requirement that applied to a claim form that had been amended in these circumstances.

Mr Wolanski relied, first, upon the notes at para 17.1.2 of the 2024 and 2025 editions of the White Book (para 31 above), in so far as the text referred to the need to file the amended claim form. Second, he drew support from the reference to the “Court copy” in the wording of PD17 para 2.1 (para 34 above), as this presupposed the amended claim form had been filed with the Court. Third, he said the notion that the amended claim form need never be filed with the Court at any stage of the litigation was a very odd proposition, all the more so given that the Court file could be inspected and the contents reported by the Press. As was well illustrated by the facts of this case, a report based on the original claim form would erroneously refer to the claim being brought in libel, when in fact, as set out in the amended claim form, it was a claim for misuse of private information. Fourth, Mr Wolanski emphasised that it was no answer to say that there was no express requirement in the CPR, as a requirement to file an amended claim form could be implied. In this regard, he relied upon a passage at para 2.3.9 of the 2024 White Book:

Mr Wolanski said, given that the Claimant’s first additional reason was clearly wrong, the issue came down to whether the Senior Master was correct to find that the only requirement to file the amended claim form in the circumstances under consideration was that contained in CPR 6.17(2) or whether the Defendants were right in saying that the amended claim form must be filed and accepted before valid service could take place.

Mr Wolanski advanced three reasons as to why the Senior Master was wrong in this regard. First, in light of the wording of CPR 6.17(2) (para 36 above), if the Senior Master was correct, then the obligation to file the amended claim form would depend upon if and when the defendant/s acknowledged service. If all the defendants filed timely acknowledgements of service, then there would be no obligation to file the amended claim form. Second, the terms of PD 6A para 7.1 (para 38 above) cut across the Senior Master’s conclusion, as this wording anticipated that any amended claim form would have already been filed with the Court by the time the CoS was filed. Thirdly, Mr Wolanski returned to the importance of open justice. If there was no obligation to file the amended claim form until 21 days after service of the particulars of claim (para 36 above), there would be a period of time when the only claim form that the public and the Press could access may not reflect the claim that was actually being advanced. In this regard, Mr Wolanski highlighted that the provisions in CPR 5.4C regarding the supply of documents from Court records to non-parties gave effect to the essential principle of open justice, from which there should only be derogation where it was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights which claimants (and others) were entitled to have protected: G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB), per Tugendhat J at paras 16 – 17.

Mr Wolanski submitted that the provisions relating to Electronic Working contemplated that a process of filing followed by Acceptance (if appropriate) would take place before a claim form amended without permission could be properly served. He drew attention to the reference in PD 51O para 5.3 to any document submitted using Electronic Working “being reviewed” by the Court prior to Acceptance (para 41 above). He said this showed that the Court’s role in deciding whether to accept an amended claim form was more than simply an administrative process. Furthermore, an additional fee could be payable under PD 51O para 5.4 (para 41 above) following amendment of a claim form, for example if the claim now fell into a different value band or a claim for an injunction was added. Mr Wolanski relied upon the same “unhappy consequences” he had identified below as applying if there was no requirement to file a claim form amended without permission before service (para 60 above). He submitted that the Senior Master’s responses to these points (para 61 above) were not persuasive, as there was no reason why a defendant who faced an impermissible amendment or a claim served out of the jurisdiction in impermissible circumstances should be put to the trouble and expense of making an application to the Court. He noted that the new PD 5C para 3.4(3)(a) expressly contemplated that a document (including a claim form) could be rejected if the correct fee had not been paid and he also highlighted the ground for rejection identified in para 3.4(3)(g) where a CRO had been made and the requisite permission to issue the claim or application had not been obtained (para 46 above). If there was no requirement to file the amended claim form, the Court would not be able to exercise this oversight over the claim. He said the same position should apply to an unrepresented litigant who was not using Electronic Working, as it would be surprising if there was a lack of consistency in the requirements of the CPR in this regard.

Mr Wolanski also sought to derive support for his position from the third option Sir Julian Flaux had suggested as available to the claimants in Ideal Shopping (para 56 above). He said this suggestion involved a recognition that the amended claim form should be filed and accepted by the Court before it was served.

Mr Hudson’s central argument was that the Senior Master was right to find that the amended claim form had been validly served, as the CPR did not require the amended claim form to be filed with the Court prior to service upon the Defendants. The Defendants had been quite unable to identify any foundation in the CPR for the alleged mandatory requirement to file a claim form amended without permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) on the previously sealed document before it was served and it would be wrong to imply such a rule, with the dramatic consequences contended for, when the rules themselves did not say this.

Mr Hudson acknowledged that it was surprising that there was no requirement in the CPR to file a claim form amended in these circumstances but he said whether this was a gap in the rules that ought to be filled, the current position was that the rules did not require this to be done. Furthermore, to succeed in their argument, the Defendants had to show, not only that there was a requirement to file the amended claim form but that the consequence of not doing so prior to service was that the amended claim form was not validly served. Mr Hudson accepted it would be good practice to file a claim form that was amended without permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1), but observed that this was a long way from saying it was a mandatory requirement and one where failure to do so led to the consequences contended for by the Defendants.

As I noted at paras 32 - 33 above, Mr Hudson pointed out that there was no equivalent to PD 17 para 1.2 requiring a claim form amended without the permission of the Court to be filed. He said that the commentary at para 17.1.2 of the White Book was just that and the text cited no authority for the proposition that a claim form amended pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) had to be filed with the Court.

Mr Hudson said that much of the Defendants’ argument was focused on identifying a series of reasons why the position “should” be as they contended, rather than identifying any rule that currently required this.

Mr Hudson clarified that he did not dispute the Master’s analysis of CPR 6.17(2), but he contended that a failure to comply with this provision in not filing an amended claim form when the CoS was filed, in circumstances where it had not already been filed with the Court, would not invalidate service of the claim form.

Mr Hudson submitted that the “unhappy consequences” identified by Mr Wolanski could be dealt with in other ways, as the Senior Master had observed, and they did not provide a basis for implying the alleged requirement relied upon by the Defendants with its attendant consequences.

It is useful to begin by re-capping a number of propositions upon which the parties were agreed:

As I outlined in my Introduction, there is really only one issue between the parties, namely whether a claimant who amends their claim form without permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) before it is served by making additions (or other alterations) to the text of the sealed claim form is required to file that amended claim form with the Court before it can be validly served on the defendant/s. For the reasons I set out below, I conclude that the Senior Master was correct to find that there is no such requirement.

I have already highlighted the absence of any express requirement in the CPR to file a claim form (or other statement of case) that has been amended in these circumstances prior to it being served and, still less, that there is nothing in the rules that states this must be done in order to effect valid service. In particular, there is nothing explicit to that effect in Part 17 of the CPR or in the accompanying Practice Direction. If such a requirement existed, that is where I would expect it to be set out. As Mr Hudson highlighted, this absence is underlined by the fact that PD 17 para 1.3 does expressly impose a requirement to file an amended statement of case in circumstances where the permission of the Court is required for the amendment to be made and it has been given (para 32 above). However, there is no equivalent express requirement in respect of a statement of case amended without the Court’s permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1). Furthermore, even in the situation covered by PD 17 para 1.3, the requirement is to file the amended statement of case within 14 days of the Court’s order; the provision does not say that filing must take place before the amended statement of case is served or that service will not be valid if that is not done.

When I asked Mr Wolanski to identify where the implied requirement stems from, he identified the reference in PD 17 para 2.1 to “the court copy” (para 34 above). However, I agree with Mr Hudson that this wording simply reflects an anticipation that the Court will have a copy of the amended statement of case (whether or not permission was required for the amendment); it does not in itself provide the basis for implying an obligation on the party making the amendment to file the amended statement of case with the Court and, still less, does it provide the basis for implying a requirement that this must be done before the amended pleading is served and that a failure to do so will invalidate service.

Accordingly, whilst I accept that in appropriate circumstances the terms of the CPR may give rise to implied procedural duties, no clear or sufficient basis has been shown for implying a requirement that a claimant who amends their claim form without permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) before it is served by making additions to the text of the sealed claim form must file that amended claim form with the Court before it can be validly served on the defendant/s.

I also agree with the Senior Master’s pertinent observation that “the relevant rules for taking important steps in the litigation process should be clearly expressed and understandable to all” (para 58 above). This is particularly so where the consequences are so significant; if the implied requirement does exist, then a failure to comply with it in the case of a claim form amended under CPR 17.1(1) is that the claim form will not have been validly served and the Court will have no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

In arriving at this conclusion I have borne in mind the commentary at para 17.1.2 of the 2024 edition of the White Book (para 31 above), but no authority or basis is cited in the text to support the proposition that the statement of case amended without permission “should be filed”. Furthermore, as Mr Hudson accepted, it is plainly good practice for a party to file a statement of case amended in these circumstances and so in that sense it is something that “should” happen. However, this is a long way from establishing an obligation to do so before the amended claim form (or other statement of case) is served or the consequence that purported service will be invalid where this is not done.

The expanded note at para 17.12 of the 2025 edition of the White Book (para 31 above) post-dates the events with which I am concerned. In any event, it does not advance the position in terms of identifying supporting authority for the proposition that the amended statement of case should be filed with the Court. Further, the references to re-sealing the claim form do not appear to reflect the important distinction between two situations where a claim form may have been amended pursuant to CPR 17.1(1), namely: (i) where the amendments are made to the text of the original claim form that was sealed and issued by the Court; and (ii) where the claimant sets out their amended claim on a new, as yet unsealed claim form. In the latter instance, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in Ideal Shopping, the amended claim form has to be filed and issued by the Court before it can be validly served, as the unsealed form is not a “claim form” for the purposes of the rules (para 53 above). By contrast, where the amendments are made to the claim form that has already been issued by the Court, the document already has the necessary Court seal. As the Senior Master said at para 56 of his judgment, “the rule is perfectly clear: the claim form may be amended “at any time” prior to service and the refence to “claim form” must clearly be to the sealed claim form which has been issued” (para 58 above). As I have indicated, both Mr Wolanski and Mr Hudson now accept that the Senior Master was correct in this respect (para 77(vi) above).

I have discussed Hills Contractors, Cant and Ideal Shopping at paras 47 – 56 above. None of these cases provide support for the Defendants’ argument. Mr Wolanski disavowed any reliance on Cant and I do not accept he is assisted by para 133 of the judgment of Sir Julian Flaux in Ideal Shopping. The suggestion therein that the claimants’ solicitors could have served the original claim forms by the 17 July 2020 deadline and then served the amended claim forms “when they had been sealed” was related to the circumstances of that particular case where, as I have explained, the amended claims were set out on new, unsealed claim forms which, accordingly, required sealing in due course (paras 53 - 54 above). It is fanciful to suggest, as Mr Wolanski did, that what Sir Julian Flaux was really saying in this passage was that under Electronic Working all claim forms amended pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) had to be filed with the Court and accepted before they could be validly served.

I do not consider that Mr Wolanski’s contention is assisted by any of the other points that he relied upon.

Mr Wolanski sought to derive support from the wording of PD 6A para 7.1 which sets out the documentation that is to be filed with the CoS addressing service of the claim form under CPR 6.17(2) (para 38 above). He said the text contemplates that the Court will already have the claim form, as the claimant is not required to file “a further copy” with the CoS; whereas the particulars of claim and any attached document are not to be filed “where that document has already been filed with the court”. This wording may do no more than reflect the fact that this rule is not specifically addressing amended claim forms and that in all instances the Court will already have a sealed copy of the claim form (as the document was issued by the Court). However, even if the wording of PD 6A para 7.1 is premised on the understanding that a claim form amended under CPR 17.1(1) should be filed with the Court, it is reading far too much into this provision to suggest it impliedly imposes a requirement to file such an amended claim form before it is served and that the consequence of a failure to do so is that valid service of the amended claim form cannot take place.

Furthermore, as Mr Wolanski pointed out (albeit to make a different forensic point), the CPR 6.17(2) requirement to file a CoS after serving the claim form and the particulars of claim, only applies where all the defendants have not acknowledged service within the prescribed time for doing so. Additionally, the CPR 6.17(2) duty is to file the documents in question within 21 days of the service of the particulars of claim. As such, this is a highly unlikely source both of a general obligation to file a claim form amended without permission under CPR 17.1(1) and, moreover, of an obligation to do this before that claim form is served and can be validly served.

I turn to Mr Wolanski’s reliance upon the process of Acceptance under PD 51O (para 41 above). Mr Wolanski argued these provisions presuppose that an amended claim form will undergo this process of review in order to check (amongst other matters) whether the articulated claim is legally intelligible and whether any additional fee is payable before it is accepted by the Court and can be validly served. However, there is nothing in PD 51O that supports this proposition. PD 51O para 5.3 addresses what will happen when a document is submitted by Electronic Working (para 41 above), it does not purport to address which documents should be submitted, when an amended claim form should be submitted or the consequences of not doing so. I have summarised the other potentially material parts of PD 51O at paras 40 – 43 above; there is nothing I can see in these provisions that impliedly imposes a duty to file a claim form amended under CPR 17.1(1) before it is served. Furthermore, Mr Wolanski ascribes a more extensive role to the para 5.3(1) process of “review” than the provisions appear to warrant. The only specific example given of what is checked in the review process concerns where the pages of the submitted document are scanned upside down or otherwise illegible (para 5.3(3)). Whilst the new PD 5C contains a more expansive list of the circumstances in which a submitted document will be rejected (paras 45 - 46 above), this post-dates the events I am concerned with, does not suggest a “review” of the kind envisaged by Mr Wolanski (where a claim that is legally unintelligible would be rejected by Court staff) and, in any event, this provides a very slender basis for implying the alleged requirement and the attendant impact on the validity of service, for the same reasons as I have identified in relation to PD 51O.

I consider that Mr Wolanski’s “unhappy consequences” are overstated in most respects. In the relatively unusual situation where an amendment to a claim form amended under CPR 17.1(1) gives rise to a requirement to pay an additional fee, the Court is unaware of this and the claimant fails to pay the fee, the defendant (who will have been served with the amended claim form) would be able to raise the matter with the Court and, if necessary, the claim can be stayed until the fee is paid. Similarly, in the relatively unusual situation where an amendment to the claim form brought the claim within the terms of a CRO (which had not applied to the original claim), the permission of the Court had not been sought as required by the CRO and the Court was unaware of it so that the claim was not automatically struck out pursuant to PD 3C para 4.3, the defendant would be able to raise the matter with the Court. Further, as the Senior Master observed, if an impermissible amendment is made by the claimant, the defendant can apply for it to be disallowed under CPR 17.2; and if an amended claim form is served out of the jurisdiction in impermissible circumstances, the defendant can challenge jurisdiction under CPR 11 (para 61 above).

In other words, the rules do make provision for these sorts of circumstances and I do not accept the sheer fact that the defendant would be put to the time and trouble of having to take some action in these sorts of situations provides a basis for implying into the rules the requirement that the Defendants seek with its highly significant attendant consequences. There are numerous situations under the rules where the party who is in the right has to make an application to the Court in order to obtain the relief to which it is entitled, for example applying to strike out a claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) because it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing it or constitutes an abuse of process.

I accept that there is force in the open justice implications that Mr Wolanski highlighted (paras 66 and 68 above). A claim form amended under CPR 17.1(1) may not be on the Court file for 21 days after service of the particulars of claim in cases where the CPR 6.17(2) obligation to file a CoS applies; and it may not be on the Court file for a longer period where all defendants have acknowledged service on a timely basis so this duty does not arise. However, whilst this may be a reason why it is desirable for there to be a general requirement to file a claim form that has been amended without permission under CPR 17.1(1) - a question for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, rather than for me - it does not in itself provide a basis to imply such a requirement into the current rules.

In this case, the Court issued a sealed claim form bearing the date of 5 June 2024. The Claimant had until 5 October 2024 to take a step required for service of the claim form pursuant to CPR 7.5(1). The Claimant’s solicitors amended the sealed claim form pursuant to CPR 17.1(1). I have concluded that there was no obligation on the Claimant to file this amended claim form with the Court and await its Acceptance and return before it could be validly served on the Defendants. The amended claim form was served by first-class post on 4 October 2024. Accordingly, I consider the Senior Master was correct in deciding that this amended claim form was validly served on the Defendants.

As I have rejected the Defendants’ central contention, the Claimant’s third additional reason for upholding the Senior Master’s order does not arise.

For the reasons set out above, I have decided that a claimant who amends their claim form without permission pursuant to CPR 17.1(1) before it is served by making additions (or other alterations) to the text of the already sealed claim form is not required to file that amended claim form with the Court before it can be validly served on the defendant/s.

Given the narrow compass of this appeal, it follows from my rejection of the Defendants’ central contention, that the Senior Master was correct to find that the amended claim form was validly served on the Defendants in this case. I therefore dismiss this appeal.

I endorse the Senior Master’s observation that the issue raised by this appeal would benefit from consideration by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (para 63 above).

I will give the parties an opportunity to address consequential matters by way of written submissions.