Karanja, R (On the Application Of) v University of the West of Scotland [2022] EWHC 1520 (Admin) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers
15/07/22. This case dealt with a number of procedural issues including jurisdiction and an extension of time for service of the claim form pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(a). Michael Ford QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, also considered whether there had been good service of the claim form whilst providing a helpful recap of the relevant law.
Background
The substantive case concerned judicial review proceedings brought by the Claimant, in which she challenged the decision of the Defendant dated 28 September 2021, dismissing her appeal against the decision that she was to withdraw from the Defendant’s Doctor of Business Administration Programme.
On 29 October Mr Sampson, the Claimant’s solicitor, e-mailed the Defendant at the address This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , copied to the e-mail address of Ms Emma Cuckow, the Defendant’s Head of Legal, to inform them that the Claimant had instructed him to lodge an application for judicial review. On 15 November Ms Cuckow responded and advised “The best contact point for you going forward would be my colleague Jacqueline Thomson”, whose email address she supplied. On 30 November the Claimant’s solicitor lodged the application for judicial review and an unsealed claim form and the supporting documents were sent to the Defendant by special delivery that day. It was not disputed that service of the unsealed claimed form was not valid: pursuant to CPR 54.7, a sealed claim form must be served on the defendant within seven days after the date of issue.
On 10 December the Claimant’s solicitor then sent an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - and not to the e-mail address of Jacqueline Thomson - attaching a copy of the sealed claim form. Ms Cuckow responded advising “I will send your recent correspondence on to her [Ms Thomson].” On 7 January the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to the court, copied to Mr Sampson, contending that the service on 10 December was late and that e-mail service was ineffective because it was not in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, the issue for determination by the court was whether there was valid service of the sealed claim form by e-mail on 10 December...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/PashaIgnatov
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
