The appellant, Mark Barton, a former litigant in person, wanted to bring a professional negligence claim against Wright Hassall LLP but the Supreme Court rejected the premise that he had validly served his claim effectively ruling out any special treatment for litigants in person when it comes to understanding and applying the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the rules which govern litigation in England and Wales.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 set out, under CPR 6.15, the methods by which a claim form may be served.  Mr Barton argued that he could not understand the rules governing service and in breach of the rules emailed his claim form to the firm acting for Wright Hassall LLP without first receiving confirmation that the firm would accept service by email.  Wright Hassall denies negligence and said that Mr Barton was not able to show any good reason why he could not have served the claim form properly.  Mr Barton sought an order under CPR 6.15 that his service of the claim form was good service but the High Court decided that Mr Barton was not entitled to ‘special rules or indulgences’ when it came to understanding and interpreting the rules on service and consequently declared his claim invalid, a decision which was supported by the Court of Appeal.  Mr Barton appealed to the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday 21 February 2018 the Supreme Court handed down its decision narrowly rejecting a plea from Mr Barton for special dispensation in navigating the Civil Procedure Rules.  Lord Sumpton, giving the lead judgment, expressed the view that it wasn’t enough that Mr Barton’s chosen method of service had brought the claim form to the attention of the firm as on that basis any unauthorised mode of service would be acceptable.  Whilst the lack of representation often permits the court to make allowances in case management decisions and when conducting hearings he said it does not justify applying a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court particularly where such rules are not particularly inaccessible or obscure. 

Mr Barton, is now represented by Howard Elgot, barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers, who said that they would now actively consider an application to the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 grounds that an excessive formalism has caused the loss of Mr Barton’s ability to bring a claim.

There is however some hope for the future treatment of litigants in person in the form of the dissenting judgments from Lord Briggs and Lady Hale.  In his dissenting Judgment, Lord Briggs expressed his hope that the rule committee might look again at the current rules, and in particular to look at whether provisions for service by email are sufficiently clear and fair.  In the meantime the judgment is a reminder for all those involved in litigation to ensure that service of key documents in the litigation process are properly effected and for any litigants in person who are unsure of the process or the rules to take early legal advice.