Failure to adequately particularise a claim in a claim form served after expiry of the limitation period is fatal and cannot be remedied by reference to a full letter of claim.
In Free Leisure Ltd (t/a Cirque Le Soir) v Peidl and Company Ltd (now dissolved) and another [2023] EWHC 792 (Comm); [2023] PLSCS 73, the court has struck out a claim for property damage against insurers.
The claimant operated a nightclub from premises in Ganton Street, W1, under the name Cirque Le Soir and the first defendant provided “handymen” services carrying out maintenance and repairs. The second defendant was the first defendant’s insurer. In late 2015, the first defendant installed a Christmas set at the club which involved attaching strings of lights to the ceilings and walls using a staple gun and fabric drapes. On 19 December 2015, a fire broke out in the Christmas installation causing substantial damage to the club.
The claimant’s solicitors sent a pre-action letter of claim to the first defendant in March 2016 alleging negligence in the installation of the lights and application of fire-retardant additive to the drapes. A claim was issued in November 2021 providing details of the claim as “a claim arising out of breach of contract and/or negligence” but not served on both defendants until March 2022 when it was accompanied by a detailed letter of claim. Particulars of Claim were served in May 2022.
Prima facie limitation expired on 18 December 2021, six years after the fire. The insurers could rely on any defence available to the insured under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. They applied to strike out the claim form and for summary judgment, arguing the claim form disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and the claim was statute-barred.
CPR 16.2 requires a claim form to contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim, which means details of the contract relied upon or of the tort alleged, and to specify the remedy sought. There were no facts in the claim form and the letter of claim served with the claim form in March 2022 did not in any sense interpret or construe it. In any event, the letter of claim was created after limitation had expired, as were the particulars of claim which pleaded new causes of action. There was no jurisdiction to amend the claim form because limitation had expired. The claim could not continue and must be struck out.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
